Cecil’s Science advisory board commented: “Hancock’s story, interesting enough and well told, has the problem that he never saw the Ark either … he just saw the church, they wouldn’t let him in. So who ya gonna believe?”
Doesn’t this strike anyone as vaguely familiar?
SCENE 1: Hancock approaches church.
GUARD 1: Halt! Who Goes there?
HANCOCK: It is I, Graham Hancock, a Briton. I, with my trusty servant Patsy, have traveled the length and breadth of this land in search of the lost Ark of the Covenant.
GUARD 1: Well, I’ll ask my master, but I don’t think he’ll be very keen… Uh, he’s already got one, you see?
HANCOCK (to Patsy): What did he say?
PATSY: He says they’ve already got one!
HANCOCK: Is there someone else up there that I could talk to?
GUARD 1: No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time-a!
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…Graham Hancock is the Erich von Daniken of the 1990’s (and 2000’s). He makes extraordinary claims and says that the evidence backs him up. The only evidence that I have ever seen him offer is his own extraordinary claims. His books deserve to be in the Archaeology section of a bookstore the way that Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance deserves to be in the automotive section.
Ok, I was about to start a new thread for this, but I figured this old one would do just as well. Sorry for bringing up an old thread…I was reading an article in July’s issue of National Geographic about this, and had a few things to add.
Anyway, there is an article written by Candice Millard, in which she describes her trip into Ethiopia, which brings up similar points to what Hancock has said about the subject of the Covenant (though his name isn’t mentioned in the article, so I don’t know if he was an inspiration for her trip or not).
In C K Dexter Haven’smailbag article, a point should be clarified: the Ethiopians don’t claim to have the “ark” (the chest containing the commandments), but rather the Tablet itself…I suspect this is an error arising from their words being improperly translated into English. I believe the bible says the Ark held two tablets, but the Ethiopians say it is contained on one (which they claim can really only be read at night time, because of the light it gives off).
The monastary is in Aksum/Axum, and there is a man there who stays in the chapel 24 hours a day to guard the tablet. From what I’ve been able to find on the subject, it doesn’t seem like any outsiders have been shown whatever it is that is inside the chapel. Now, I don’t actually believe they have the real tablet hidden in there, but there has to be something worthwhile if a guy is spending his entire life guarding one small room, right?
Also, the Ethiopians claim that the Ark (or at least the tablet inside the Ark) was brought to Ethiopia (specifically the monastery Tana Kirkos) by King Solomon’s son Menelik before the Babylonians attacked. I also found some references to Queen Sheba having something to do with this, but that was a little fuzzy.
Which brings me to my question: Are there any documents at all that back up this claim that Menelik brought the Ark/tablet to Ethiopia?
Descriptions of the tablet, from a 1998 New York Times article:
…
…
(These quotes are a very small portion of the article, in case anyone’s worried about the copyright stuff)
The article also describes the “Guardian of the Ark’s” duties that I was talking about in my last post: From midnight until 3 p.m. he must burn incense and pray. The rest of the time he sleeps and eats within that room.
Of course Menelik is supposed to have been the son of Solomon & the fabled Queen of Sheba. This is the common tradition in Ethiopia itself, not Hancock’s invention.
But I don’t think Hancock buys the Menelik story. According to the television (well, actually I think it was on a VHS tape, but it may the same one CKDex’ referenced) presentation I saw of Hancock’s hypothesis, this is probably a myth grown up around the ark. If the Ethiopian ark is in fact the original Israelite ark (or a remnant thereof) it may have been rescued from the temple during the reign of Manasseh son of Hezekiah (II Kings 21, II Chronicles 33), who put idols in the Temple courts.
The problem is that II Chronicles 35:3 refers to the Ark when Manasseh’s grandson Josiah abolished idolatry in Judah:
Maybe Hancock was only reading II Kings (chapters 22, 23), which doesn’t refer to the Ark being restored. More likely, he sees that period as a likely point for Temple-cult purists to run off with the Ark and build their own temple elsewhere.
In the period of the Medo-Persian empire, there was apparently a Temple to Yahu (aka YWHW) on the Egyptian island of Elephantine (in pre-Greek days called Yeb, Yabu, or Abu). Hancock (or perhaps his television colleagues) suggest that it may have been built to house the rescued Ark of the Covenant, and that in later centuries the Ark found its way to Ethiopia. Of course, the Elephantine temple was sacked by non-Yahvists in 410 BCE. So I don’t know how he explains the subsequent path of the tablet (the TV program didn’t bother to say).
I confess I haven’t followed these recent developments, where the claim is now that the object residing in the Ethiopian Church is a single table with the Ten Commandments inscribed on it, that can only be read if held at a certain angle in the right light?
I mean, I wouldn’t want to appear skeptical or anything, but consider the change in stance:
FROM: An actual ark, made mostly of gold, intricately described in detail in Biblical Accounts; and the parts made of wood could be carbon-dated, the carvings could be compared to other carvings of the time, and there would be some easy way to quickly assess that something were counterfeit (ignoring the question of whether touching the Ark brings death, as per a biblical story.)
TO: A tablet with carvings on it, which cannot be dated (I mean, it’s rock, and it would be hard to date carvings precisely); more so if the carvings themselves are eroded so as to be hard to read.
Um.
It is certainly possible that the Ethiopian Church has some sort of ancient relic that they venerate. It is possible that it has been there for centuries. It is likely that they don’t want to show it to infidels/outsiders for fear it will be stolen. So they could be acting in good faith. But the context certainly arouses suspicions.
C K:
I don’t think this was ever a change in stance on the part of the Ethiopians (Aksumites? Axumians?), though. It seems more like the English-speaking journalists have chosen to refer to the tablet as “The Ark”, either because of a mistranslation into English or because the idea of the lost Ark (reminiscent of Indiana Jones) is going to sell more newspapers than referring to a stone tablet.
Of course, this doesn’t do anything to prove that they actually have the tablet in there, but I do think it at least makes the argument that the Ark was destroyed by the Babylonians irrelevant.
As for why they won’t show anyone the tablet…well, the claim is that only someone extremely strong in their faith (the Guardian) is able to look at the tablet without having some sort of ill-effect (it seemed like they thought you would go insane). From some of the quotes I read, the people seem to genuinely believe this, so I suspect it is in good faith. Though the fact that they have been able to generate a fair amount of revenue from tourists because of this probably doesn’t hurt either.
foolsguinea:
Yeah…I mentioned the Queen of Sheba because I’ve read two different versions of the Ethiopian legend. Most articles say that the tradition is that Menelik saved the Tablet, but I have also read a version where, essentially, the Queen took Menelik’s place in the telling of the story.
This is pretty much the view taken by Roderick Grierson and Stuart Munro-Hay in their The Ark of the Covenant (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1999), which is the most up-to-date scholarly treatment of the subject. Their explicit aim was the debunking of Hancock. Their argument is that the object at Axum was probably originally a portable altar of the type once common among nomadic tribes of the Middle East and that the Biblical ‘Ark’ was something similar, although almost certainly not the same object.
