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.
I have a couple cool links on the Ark-
National Geographic has a brief article on the Ethiopian church that claims it.
And here is a link of links for those that really want to read.
Me
“that was itself a replica of the desert tent-thingie” should be understood to be a phrase that modifies “the tabernacle”, not “the temple”.
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. 
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.
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.
9906753
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.
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!
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
It is mentioned in the Qur’an. Certainly from what the Prophet said a Muslim shouldn’t want to destroy it.
Look again. (The number actually onscreen is not the same as the number in the book, script, etc.)