The electrical Ark was a favorite claim of Erich Von Daniken. It was even claimed that a scientist had crafted a replica & found it to be dangerously charged.
“Ah, so it was a 1920’s BC style death ray!” 
(You knew it was coming, didn’t you? ;))
So, did his face, like, melt or what?
That certainly was done quite a bit throughout history, including the Crusades. And, it just seems unlikely to me that if the Jews in charge wanted to hide something as important as the Ark of the Covenant in a time of crisis, they wouldn’t have been so dumb as to hide it exactly where people would be looking. Much better to relocate it from the Temple Mount to some non-descript place where it would be unlikely someone would just stumble across it.
Was the Ark lost with the tablets when the Babylonians destroyed the first Temple?
hijack…
I’ve seen this quote parroted many a time, but I’ve yet to see any evidence for it. Would you happen to have a cite for this statement? The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on the True Cross (along with many other sources) makes reference to a Rohault de Fleury, who in 1870 catalogued all fragments currently existing, as well as those that had a written record but had been lost, and calculated that the total volume of the fragments would scarcely make up a third of a hypothetical 2m x 3m cross of 75 kg. As far as I know, his research has never been refuted.
Now consider how many fragments were sold that no longer exist, and there are no written records of. Most of these surely were sold to naive, illiterate peasants.
Actually, please move any discussion of the Cross fragments to here. Apologies for hijack.
Geoffrey Chaucer.
That could be true. Then again, what are the fragments of the “True Cross”, and did we somehow omit “false” fragments from this estimate? All I know is that, during the Reformation, none less than Luther himself wondered aloud how there were enough graves of Apostles for there to be over twenty of them, when in fact there were only 12. St. Peter seems to have been in possession of two skulls. I think even one Apostle turned out to be mouse. That’s something I didn’t know!
I don’t consider Christian relics to be worth the effort of review, but I think the estimate of the Cross’ mass, if fully assembled, would be very, very large. Some might say absurdly large. I think these estimates annoyed many Popes, Cardinals, etc. Hence the article, in a “Catholic Encyclopedia”? Perhaps de Fleury omitted some candidates by some “reliable” method of exclusion? I guess I’ll leave the “facts” on subject to those who like counting angels on pins. Suffice to say, early Christians loved their relics, sand cherished them; some even venerated them. I’m guessing Jewish distaste for idolatry would leave them frowning on lugging around, say, one of Moses’ fingers, for use as a religious fetish.
You obviously haven’t read the well-known children’s novel, Jesus and Me…
There you go. It stays as is until God does it himself.
Now if we can just protect it and ourselves from the nutcases…
rwj
The Onion Dome, the Orthodox self-parody publication emulating The Onion, had an interesting account a while ago about an argument between representatives of the three churches which each have the mummified severed head of John the Baptist. (Sorry I don’t have a link; ybeayf, are you familiar with the publication?)
According to this site – http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Holy_Prepuce – at least ten different churches in Europe have, at one time or another, claimed to possess the foreskin of Jesus.
What do Moiles do with foreskins?
Put each one in a jar, label it “Jeshua ben Joseph”, and make a fortune selling them to Christians?
Now that’s funny.
Indeed I am. I don’t recall that specific article, though. I am vaguely familiar with the situation with the three monasteries, though I was under the impression they each had a portion of the skull, rather than each having the complete skull.
In any case, I’m under the belief that if a relic can’t be verified as being authentic, it’s better to err on the side of caution and treat it as if it is. Even if it is ultimately fake, the intention while venerating it is what’s important (like with icons, i.e. giving honor to the saint whose icon or relic it is), rather than the object itself.
Y’know, the more I think about it, the more I wonder “If anything, what in the heck was this Ark?”
It’s one of those elements of the story that is sufficiently bizarre so as to make me wonder if there isn’t some kernal of factual information there. I think I remember reading someplace that the Egyptians used to construct boxes of similar design, and as the Jews were purportedly held in bondage in Egypt for centuries, it would be no surprise that they picked up some of their art. Some Egyptian biers, in fact, resemble the Ark superficially, and as the Ark is a kind of portable throne, there’s another possible link to an Egyptian aesthetic.
But then things get weird. The Ark is extremely dangerous, to anybody. Just approaching it the wrong way could mean death as Nabdab and Abihu discovered fatally in Leviticus. Oops! Glowing light would emanate from the “Mercy Seat” and strike enemiess and friends alike dead. Joshua tells people to keep thousands of feet away from it while crossing the Jordan (Josh. 3), I suppose for their own protection. Poor Uzzah tries to lend a helping hand just to keep it upright, and gets smited (2 Sam.)
The Philistines, when putting the Ark in the temple of their god Dagon, in Ashdod, they find their statue of Dagon desecrated, and then they suffer an epidemic of tumors. So they move it to Gath. Everyone in Gath gets tumors. So they try to take it to Ekron. The Ekronites say (paraphrasing) “No way! We don’t want it! That thing’s gonna kill us! Give it back to the Israelites!” So, after seven months of affliction, with thousands of deaths due to the plauges of tumors, the Philistines finally give it up, throwing a few golden rats and tumors into the bargain, to help smooth matters over, I guess. But even as they tried to return the thing, it smites another 70 Philistines on the way( 1 Sam).
The Ark kinda comes across as the prototypical weapon of mass destruction. If G-d favored the Israelites, carrying it to battle assured victory. But being such a potent artifact made it perilous just to have it around, yet it seems the Israelites were willing to put up with a few inadvertent deaths to keep it around.
I don’t think anything like this Ark, beyond some similarities in appearance, shows up anywhere in any of the mythology of the Near East. It’s really quite unique, and even more odd when you consider the Jewish aversion to things like Golden Calves and the like. It’s almost ironic: Moses goes up the mountain; Aaron et al. build a Golden Calf; Moses comes down, sets them straight, and right away they build a golden Ark instead. And in that Ark sits the Lord. Flames shoot from it to consume sacrificial offerings. Look inside? Die!
Weird! Don’t you think? I mean, I know the Bible is full of weirdness, but the Ark, if you ask me, is in quite a league of its own. It almost makes me wonder if there isn’t something, possibly, who knows, to this Leyden jar hypothesis. It’s a fascinating story, whatever the origin.