They could at least lay waste to entire regions. See my comments in this thread.
What about if it struck down with lightning those who tried to test it?
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. 
The ark was made of gold-covered wood.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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” - 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.
“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.
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. 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.
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.
Argument from absence.
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.
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.
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.