The Arc of the Covenant in Ethiopia?

[drbuzz0]

I've done some resarch on the Arc of the Covenant, after catching a documentary on it on the History Channel.

Apparently the Ethiopian Orthadox Church claims that they have the original biblica arc, which they are keeping in a remote shrine at the Church Of Saint Marry Zion.

Of course, there's no way of validating this, because they don't generally let people see it. However, based on the history of the region and the stories and known facts about Isralie history, it doesn't seem impossible that it could have made its way to Ethiopia. Ethiopia actually has some well established historical ties with the ancient Isralie civilization and to this day there are Jews in Ethiopia who claim direct liniage to the tribes of Israel.

Apparently, a preist was allowed to catch a glimpse of the reputed arc a while ago and said that it was either real or "a convincing replica." It's not impossible that it is a replica either, as apparently in ancient times many replicas were made of the arc. They were not portrayed as the actual arc, but were worshipped as representations of it.


So my question is this: Since there is at least a chance that they may have the arc, has there been any interest on the state of Israel or the World Jewish Congress or any Jewish organizations to try to establish whether it is real and if so, to have it returned?

Presumably, the modern Jews would have some validity to a claim for it, since it was supposedly taken out of their country to protect it when the area was overrun and now they have reestablished control of Israel.

I know there have been projects to look for the real arc in underground passanges in Jeruselum, but considering that there is a group which claims that they have it, it seems logical that those looking for the arc would want to at least check out the reputed arc in Ethiopia.

-Steve

[Quotidian]

Presumably, the modern Jews would have some validity to a claim for it, since it was supposedly taken out of their country to protect it when the area was overrun and now they have reestablished control of Israel.

Actually, the Ethiopian tradition says that it was taken by the son of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. Nobody takes this seriously.

[CynicalGabe]

1. The people guarding "the arc" don't want to let anyone look inside the chapel where they say it is (I saw that same documentary).

2. No one is going to force them to open it up.

[drbuzz0]

Yes, I realize that the Ethiopian tradition which says that they have the arc is not generally accepted as historical fact and I'm not saying that it's true or even that it's *probably* true.

However, an analogy might be this: When a search is underway for a missing person and someone viemently claims that they know the location of that person, it's pretty well accepted that their lead ought to be checked out, even if it seems far fetched.

Considering that there the story hasn't been disproved, it seems like it's worth at least checking out.

I realize that the keepers of the supposed arc don't let anybody see it in general, but has the request ever been made to see it by the state of Israel or by a high ranking Rabbi? It seems like it might be worth at least giving some deplomacy a shot, on the chance that they may be persuaded.

[spingears]

I know there have been projects to look for the real arc in underground passanges in Jeruselum, but considering that there is a group which claims that they have it, it seems logical that those looking for the arc would want to at least check out the reputed arc in Ethiopia. -SteveWAG It's stored under NORAD's Mountain somewhere in the Rocky Mountain chain.
Left there by Indiana Jones a few years back. Top Secret, hush hush, for safe keeping, and all that.
It is in safe storage untill Solomon's Temple is rebuilt on Mount Moria and the Temple Worship is reestablished!

[BrainGlutton]

1. The people guarding "the arc" don't want to let anyone look inside the chapel where they say it is (I saw that same documentary).

2. No one is going to force them to open it up.

Well, of course not! Your eyes would melt!

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of_the_covenant#Where_is_it_now.3F.

[silenus]

An arc is a curve. The Ark is either a really smelly boat, or the container for the 10 Commandment pieces.

[Exapno Mapcase]

I realize that the keepers of the supposed arc don't let anybody see it in general, but has the request ever been made to see it by the state of Israel or by a high ranking Rabbi? It seems like it might be worth at least giving some deplomacy a shot, on the chance that they may be persuaded.
If they claimed to have Bigfoot, would the U.S. demand diplomatically to examine it?

Some claims don't need to be pursued.

[Cat Jones]

Actually, the Ethiopian tradition says that it was taken by the son of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. Nobody takes this seriously. Nobody except those priests who guard it and many Ethiopian Christians you mean ? :dubious:

[sharkattack]

Well there you go....

the answer to President Bush's frustrations in Iraq:

(from: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of...re_is_it_now.3F.)

From 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


He needs to invade Ethiopia, take the ark, stradle it and fly it in on an apache.

[Diceman]

The priests of the shrine are never going to cooperate with any official requests to examine the Ark. Consider it from their point of view: if someone examines the Ark, and it turns out to be fake, then you and all your predecessors have been wasting your time guarding a replica. Major bummer. OTOH, if the Ark is proven to be legitimate, then the shrine will be immediately overrun by a bazillion pilgrims. In addition to the pilgrims, they'll be besieged by requests to turn the Ark over to a museum. Isreal will demand the return of the Ark to their country, if they don't just send in a commando team to take it. Having the Ark be proven to be legitimate could, arguably, be worse than having it be proven to be fake.

[Kizarvexius]

The priests of the shrine are never going to cooperate with any official requests to examine the Ark. Consider it from their point of view: if someone examines the Ark, and it turns out to be fake, then you and all your predecessors have been wasting your time guarding a replica. Major bummer. OTOH, if the Ark is proven to be legitimate, then the shrine will be immediately overrun by a bazillion pilgrims. In addition to the pilgrims, they'll be besieged by requests to turn the Ark over to a museum. Isreal will demand the return of the Ark to their country, if they don't just send in a commando team to take it. Having the Ark be proven to be legitimate could, arguably, be worse than having it be proven to be fake.


Wow, Diceman. That was an extremely interesting assessment of the situation. And, sad as it may be, I fear that you're correct.

[elmwood]

So my question is this: Since there is at least a chance that they may have the arc, has there been any interest on the state of Israel or the World Jewish Congress or any Jewish organizations to try to establish whether it is real and if so, to have it returned?

If it was returned, where would it go? There's no Temple.

[BrainGlutton]

OTOH, if the Ark is proven to be legitimate, then the shrine will be immediately overrun by a bazillion pilgrims.

With tourist dollars! :)

Come on! Ethiopia's economy needs a boost!

[NurseCarmen]

If they had the ark, wouldn't Ethiopia's army be invincible?

[DrDeth]

It's a replica, I am sure. Personally, I think that the real Ark of the Covenant is buried somewhere near Jerusalem, assuming it wasn't melted down by invaders.

And you know- speaking of the other Ark- the fact that dudes keep seeing "something" on Mt Ararat could simply mean that some early Christian (or even earlier Jewish) group made a replica up there in the hills.

[glee]

I've done some resarch on the Arc of the Covenant, after catching a documentary on it on the History Channel.

Apparently the Ethiopian Orthadox Church claims that they have the original biblica arc, which they are keeping in a remote shrine at the Church Of Saint Marry Zion.

Of course, there's no way of validating this, because they don't generally let people see it.

Well apparently the Ark is in Jerusalem - 'Ron Wyatt is an archeologist who has been led by the Lord to discover the location of the Ark of the Covenant.'

http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/ark.html

And it's also in Jordan - 'Based on ancient Jewish writings, some have suggested the Ark is hidden on Mount Nebo on the Jordan River's east bank.'

And here - 'the Ark is hidden somewhere near the Dead Sea'

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a002.html

And it's in Ireland - 'The Ark of the Covenant is located at Tara in Ireland'

http://100777.com/ark

And it's in Utah too! - 'Bible code hints that Lehi brought the Ark of the Covenant to the Americas. Alphabetics code hints that it now hidden in Sanpete Valley.'

http://www.greaterthings.com/Word-Number/Ark/

It can't be long before it's on sale on E-Bay... :confused:

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Apparently, a preist was allowed to catch a glimpse of the reputed arc a while ago and said that it was either real or "a convincing replica."
How would he know?
So my question is this: Since there is at least a chance that they may have the arc, has there been any interest on the state of Israel or the World Jewish Congress or any Jewish organizations to try to establish whether it is real and if so, to have it returned?
What test would establish that it was "real?"

Local superstitions aside, the Ethiopian Ark claim is simply not taken seriously by historians, archaeologists or Israel. Your query makes a lot of assumptions which have little or no historical support, starting with the assumption that the Ark ever existed at all. Since the entire story of Moses and the Exodus has been thrown into doubt (to say the least) by archaeological evidence (to put it bluntly, the Exodus is now almost universally believed by archaeologists and ME historians to be a mythic invention), it stands to reason the story of Moses receiving tablets at Sinai and building an ark to tote them around in (while Yahjweh rode on top) are fictional events, not historical ones. We have never found any evidence that Solomon existed. We have never found any remains of the first Temple. We don't know who the Queen of Sheba was, where she was from or if she existed at all. The claim that Solomon and Sheba had a son (or even that they had an affair) is not in the Bible. There are some who even argue that neither Solomon, nor the first Temple nor the Ark ever existed- that these are all just elements of a mythic history invented after the Babylonian exile.

In short, there is a whole lot of other stuff to prove before it makes any sense to discuss the authenticity of an Ark in Ethiopia. My WAG (for what it's worth) is that the Ethiopians have some sort of replica or perhaps an old Egyptian ark (the Egyptians and Babylonians used to build their own arks for their Gods, complete with carved cherubim, that were kept in special chambers and contained sacred relics) upon which they have built their legend.

If there ever was a real ark built for the first temple, it was most likely looted or destroyed by the Babylonians.

[yBeayf]

What test would establish that it was "real?"
If carbon dating established that it was 3,000 years old or so, that would be a strong point in its favor, at least.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If carbon dating established that it was 3,000 years old or so, that would be a strong point in its favor, at least.
That at least would not falsify it, but there were lots of other arks 3000 years ago.

[psiekier]

If they had the ark, wouldn't Ethiopia's army be invincible?They could at least lay waste to entire regions. See my comments in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6218081&posted=1#post6218081).

[yBeayf]

That at least would not falsify it, but there were lots of other arks 3000 years ago.
What about if it struck down with lightning those who tried to test it?

[Translucent Daydream]

If carbon dating established that it was 3,000 years old or so, that would be a strong point in its favor, at least.

Would they carbon date the wooden handles that slid in on the side? Or maybe the stone tablets inside?

I am not a carbon 12 dating expert, but doesn't the things that get tested need to be alive, previously alive, or contain carbon? It has been about seven years since I read the Old Testament, but I thought that it was built largely of gold.

Anybody know?


If we did find The Ark of The Covenant, we could really be prepared to kick Nazi ass if they ever decided to show up. :D

[yBeayf]

Would they carbon date the wooden handles that slid in on the side? Or maybe the stone tablets inside?
The ark was made of gold-covered wood.

[DrDeth]

Local superstitions aside, the Ethiopian Ark claim is simply not taken seriously by historians, archaeologists or Israel. Your query makes a lot of assumptions which have little or no historical support, starting with the assumption that the Ark ever existed at all. Since the entire story of Moses and the Exodus has been thrown into doubt (to say the least) by archaeological evidence (to put it bluntly, the Exodus is now almost universally believed by archaeologists and ME historians to be a mythic invention), it stands to reason the story of Moses receiving tablets at Sinai and building an ark to tote them around in (while Yahjweh rode on top) are fictional events, not historical ones. We have never found any evidence that Solomon existed. We have never found any remains of the first Temple

There are some who even argue that neither Solomon, nor the first Temple nor the Ark ever existed- that these are all just elements of a mythic history invented after the Babylonian exile.

In short, there is a whole lot of other stuff to prove before it makes any sense to discuss the authenticity of an Ark in Ethiopia. My WAG (for what it's worth) is that the Ethiopians have some sort of replica or perhaps an old Egyptian ark (the Egyptians and Babylonians used to build their own arks for their Gods, complete with carved cherubim, that were kept in special chambers and contained sacred relics) upon which they have built their legend.

If there ever was a real ark built for the first temple, it was most likely looted or destroyed by the Babylonians.

You start out well, then get so deeply into scepticism that you lose all sight of the truth.

Although indeed the Exodus as such (the size, scale, and timeline" are all highly doubtful, that doesn't mean that a few proto-Jewish slaves didn't escape from Egypt and make the trek "home". Thus, there could have been a Moses, and he could have made an Ark. There must have been some start to early Judaism you know.

We do have evidence that Solomon existed- written evidence. It's called "1st Kings". Yes, it's a religous text, and yes portions are doubtful. But we accept other ancient texts as 'evidence"- why not the Bible? There is no evidence of a Solomon from digs. However, David founded the Temple, and there is some slight evidence of a King David (I have little doubt that a "real" King David of some sort existed- but also little doubt he was heavily mythologized. After all, George Washington was real, despite the many myths created about him). There is good solid evidence of later Kings, of course.

No serious Archaeolgist disputes there was a 1st Temple. No reason to think there wasn't an Ark in it (although the source of said Ark is another matter).

[Translucent Daydream]

The ark was made of gold-covered wood.

I wouldn't want to be the dude that has the job of scraping away at the Ark to test it's validity.

I mean, I saw the movie. Melted wax face is something I REALLY don't need.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You start out well, then get so deeply into scepticism that you lose all sight of the truth.

Although indeed the Exodus as such (the size, scale, and timeline" are all highly doubtful, that doesn't mean that a few proto-Jewish slaves didn't escape from Egypt and make the trek "home". Thus, there could have been a Moses, and he could have made an Ark. There must have been some start to early Judaism you know.
What do you mean by "early Judaism?" There is no evidence of what we would call monotheistic Judaism until post-exilic times.

There is no evidence that any Israelites of any significant number were ever enslaved in Egypt, and the Egyptians did not keep foreign slaves after the Hyksos occupation. There is no evidence of any human presence in the Sinai during the time of the purported wanderings. There was no conquest of Canaan. There was no mass migration in from the desert. Not only that, but Canaan was controlled by Egypt at the time. The Israelites would not have been "escaping" from anything.
We do have evidence that Solomon existed- written evidence. It's called "1st Kings". Yes, it's a religous text, and yes portions are doubtful. But we accept other ancient texts as 'evidence"- why not the Bible?
We most certainly do NOT accept other ancient religious texts as evidence, at least not prima facie. We look for corroboration.
There is no evidence of a Solomon from digs. However, David founded the Temple, and there is some slight evidence of a King David (I have little doubt that a "real" King David of some sort existed- but also little doubt he was heavily mythologized. After all, George Washington was real, despite the many myths created about him). There is good solid evidence of later Kings, of course.

No serious Archaeolgist disputes there was a 1st Temple. No reason to think there wasn't an Ark in it (although the source of said Ark is another matter).
I don't disagree with any of this (although I think King Arthur would be a better analogy to David than George Washington), I was just trying to make a point about how much actually has to be established foundationally before we start talking about the authenticity of unexamined arks.

[DrDeth]

What do you mean by "early Judaism?" There is no evidence of what we would call monotheistic Judaism until post-exilic times.

There is no evidence that any Israelites of any significant number were ever enslaved in Egypt, and the Egyptians did not keep foreign slaves after the Hyksos occupation. There is no evidence of any human presence in the Sinai during the time of the purported wanderings. There was no conquest of Canaan. There was no mass migration in from the desert. Not only that, but Canaan was controlled by Egypt at the time. The Israelites would not have been "escaping" from anything.

We most certainly do NOT accept other ancient religious texts as evidence, at least not prima facie. We look for corroboration. .

Who said 'early Judaism" had to be entirely Monotheistic?

Here, you're entirely wrong. I have "The Oxford History of the Biblical World" and it give copious examples of Semetic slaves all during that period. "A variety of sources...indicate that during the second millenium BCE, large numbers of Asiatics found their way into Egypt. Many came as slaves..." "Similar parallels exist for an Isrealite "sjourn in Egypt". Diverse second millennium BCE Egyptian records attest to Asiatics (by this they mean Asia Minor, or the Middle east)...living in Egypt and functioning in a wide variety of capacities ranging from the most menial of slave to the highest of offcials." "A Dynasty 13 papyrus lists individually 79 slaves belonging to (one) private household in Upper Egypt; of these 48 had foriegn names, mostly Semetic. Middle Kingdom stelas in general often mention Semitic domestic slaves who function as trusted family retainers. Indeed, so many household slaves in Egypt were of Asiatic origin that the generic word for Asiatic "amw", became synonomous in some contexts with "slave"." Note that "Bay" (likely a Syrian)- ran Egypt during the "reign" of Queen Tewosret. This evidence goes on for 5 pages, all carefully footnoted, etc. The Hyskos were expelled in the mid-16th century BCE, thus there is scads of solid evidence of foriegn slaves after that date, as i have shown.

As to the date of the "exodus"- they admt that "at no time in the known archaeological sequence for Egypt, Sinai & Palestine does the extant archaeological record accord with that expected from the Exodus accoutn from the Bible". "... a brood consensus places the Exodus somewhere in the middle or towrds the end of the 2nd Millennium BCE, just before or during the late bronze age, the Egyptian new Kingdom..." (They settle on the 13th century BCE as the most likely date). Although indeed- Canaan was "controled" by Egypt around that period, one has only to read the Amara letters to see how weak and loose that "control" was. "... sporadic Egyptian control continued breifly until the middle of the 12th century BCE. After this, however, Egyptian authority collapsed completely."

Mind you, as I said- no reputable Archaeologist accepts the entire biblical Exodus as "gospel" :D - but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a lesser, smaller, shorter (and differently dated than tradition holds, although no dates are given for it in the Bible) 'exodus". In fact, such a thing is generally accepted, even though there is no real evidence for it (although the "isrealites' had to come from somewhere of course. They did conquer that area.*)

I probably go along with you that Moses is more "King Arthur" than "Geo Washington"- accepting that is that King Arthur was a real "Dux" of the Romano-Britons who had a victory over the Saxons- but no"Round Table", Lancelot, Questing beast, and so forth. "Knight" sure, but only as the Heavy Calvary of that period came originally from the Roman Equites class, and those mounted warriors were landholding "knights' of a sort.

* There are theories that claim that the Isrealites were always there, that their "conquest" was more of a "rebellion".

And certainly archeaolgists "accept other ancient religious texts as evidence". "Accepting it as evidence" doesn't = "proof". There's "evidence" from writings, "evidence" from digs, and so forth- all of which has to be considered before deciding on the consensus. But the OT is certainly "evidence"- at least as good as the "Amara letters" or various stela* for example.

* Some of which make claims that certainly appear to be false.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Who said 'early Judaism" had to be entirely Monotheistic?

Here, you're entirely wrong. I have "The Oxford History of the Biblical World" and it give copious examples of Semetic slaves all during that period. "A variety of sources...indicate that during the second millenium BCE, large numbers of Asiatics found their way into Egypt. Many came as slaves..." "Similar parallels exist for an Isrealite "sjourn in Egypt". Diverse second millennium BCE Egyptian records attest to Asiatics (by this they mean Asia Minor, or the Middle east)...living in Egypt and functioning in a wide variety of capacities ranging from the most menial of slave to the highest of offcials." "A Dynasty 13 papyrus lists individually 79 slaves belonging to (one) private household in Upper Egypt; of these 48 had foriegn names, mostly Semetic. Middle Kingdom stelas in general often mention Semitic domestic slaves who function as trusted family retainers. Indeed, so many household slaves in Egypt were of Asiatic origin that the generic word for Asiatic "amw", became synonomous in some contexts with "slave"." Note that "Bay" (likely a Syrian)- ran Egypt during the "reign" of Queen Tewosret. This evidence goes on for 5 pages, all carefully footnoted, etc. The Hyskos were expelled in the mid-16th century BCE, thus there is scads of solid evidence of foriegn slaves after that date, as i have shown.
"Semitic" does not mean "Israelite." "Parallels for an Israelite sojourn" is a clever circumlocution but is not quite the same as stating there is actual evidence for Israelites in Egypt. There was plenty of "Semitic"and Canaanite immigration and presence in Egypt before the Hyksos period. The Hyksos themselves were Canaanites. The presence of Semites in Egypt in the 2nd millenium BCE is not in dispute. That distinct cultural group which came to be known as Israelites, however, is completely absent from the Egyptian archaeological and historical record. The Israelites are alleged to have been in Egypt for at least 400 years yet not a single trace of their presence has ever been found. The archaeological evidence in (what was then) Canaan shows the Israelites as an indigeonous Canaanite population with a continuous presence in Judea, without any period of absence or migration in or out. There is no trace of Egyptian influence on the Hebrew language or on other aspects of Israelite culture. After the Hyksos were driven out of Egypt and back to Canaan (by a Pharaoh named Ahmose), Egypt became extremely xenophobic and built towers and fortresses to block any more immigration in from Canaan- unsurprising for a nation which had been brutally invaded and occupied for (coincidentally?) 400 years by Canaanites.
As to the date of the "exodus"- they admt that "at no time in the known archaeological sequence for Egypt, Sinai & Palestine does the extant archaeological record accord with that expected from the Exodus accoutn from the Bible". "... a brood consensus places the Exodus somewhere in the middle or towrds the end of the 2nd Millennium BCE, just before or during the late bronze age, the Egyptian new Kingdom..." (They settle on the 13th century BCE as the most likely date).
They pick the 13th century because Exodus 1:11 claims the Israelites were forced to build the city of Raamses. Egyptian records indicate that this city was built by Raamses II who reigned from 1279-1213 BCE. This is also why Raamses II is the traditional Pharaoh of the Exodus, though the Bible does not name him. There are a couple of Biblical claims which would seem to contradict that, though. One problem is that Raamses II did not drown in the Red Sea. He lived to be almost 90. Here's a picture of his mummy. (http://www.aegypten-fotos.de/luxor/ramses_e.htm) The other item which would seem to not only torpedo Raamses but any 13th century date at all is I Kings 6:1 which claims that the Exodus occurred exactly 480 years before Solomon began construction of the Temple "in the fourth year of his reign." A date for the Exodus of c. 1250 - 480 years would put Solomon into the 8th century BCE. Much too late. 480 years could be explained away as a symbolic or mythical number, though, so maybe it's not important.
Although indeed- Canaan was "controled" by Egypt around that period, one has only to read the Amara letters to see how weak and loose that "control" was. "... sporadic Egyptian control continued breifly until the middle of the 12th century BCE. After this, however, Egyptian authority collapsed completely."
Israel was already in Canaan by the end of the 13th century BCE, though. The Merneptah stele claims that Raamses II's son "laid waste" to a people called "Israel" in 1210 BCE.
Mind you, as I said- no reputable Archaeologist accepts the entire biblical Exodus as "gospel" :D - but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a lesser, smaller, shorter (and differently dated than tradition holds, although no dates are given for it in the Bible) 'exodus".
Argument from absence.
In fact, such a thing is generally accepted, even though there is no real evidence for it (although the "isrealites' had to come from somewhere of course. They did conquer that area.*)
These statements are just wrong. They did not conquer the area (at least not from the outside and not any time close to the Exodus), the evidence for indegenous origin is overwhelming and the Exodus is not accepted as historical anymore except by religious traditionalists.
* There are theories that claim that the Isrealites were always there, that their "conquest" was more of a "rebellion".
This is the kind of theory advanced by people like Mendenhall and Dever, but these theories do not posit a conquest, so much as the rise of a new social order- the emergence of Israel as a kingdom from within, not as a conquering military power from without. More recently, Israel Finkelstein has argued that the emergence of Israel in the hill regions of Judea was the result of a population explosion partly driven by an influx of nomadic (but still Canaanite) peoples from the East. All of these theories are based on archaeological evidence for a completely indigenous origin.
And certainly archeaolgists "accept other ancient religious texts as evidence". "Accepting it as evidence" doesn't = "proof". There's "evidence" from writings, "evidence" from digs, and so forth- all of which has to be considered before deciding on the consensus. But the OT is certainly "evidence"- at least as good as the "Amara letters" or various stela* for example.
The Amara letters and various Egyptian stele are not religious texts, but they are evaluated with a grain of salt because of the propensity for Egyptian Pharaohs to exaggerate their successes.

It is not true that serious historians or archaeologists treat the bible differently than other religious texts. It gets the same kind of treatment as Gilgamesh or the Iliad or other mythic literature. The historical claims on the Bible, in and of themselves, are not accepted prima facie as factual but neither are the claims made by Homer.