When watching Richard and Judy today (for those Americans this is a talk show which invites guests on to talk about everything from their recent movies, to their recent scientific discoveries) a guest was on claiming that he thought he knew where the ark was finally kept.
Now, this meets with a few quetions, namely the historical basis for this man’s theory.
His name is Graham Phillips. He wrote a book, which admittedly I haven’t read, detailing the feats of the Knights Templar and their connection with the ark. I believe the title is ‘The Templars and the Ark of the Covenant’.
Anyway, his whole theory is that back when the Knights Templar came back to England they built a chapel in Warwickshire (that’s in the middle, for you Americans) sometime before or after they were disbanded by the King. I’m not too firm on the details.
Mostly because I don’t care. Or I wasn’t listening.
But I listened to the important bits.
And the important bits included some information on one specific former Knight who claimed he’d found the ark while on crusade and subsequently brought it back to England and then they built this chapel to house them.
But nobody would believe this guy that he’d found the ark, and so he didn’t publicize it and blah blah blah.
He was really upset so he had a stained glass window made and donated it to a church in a nearby town.
In this window are supposed clues to finding the actual ark’s final resting place in England.
And if you follow them it leads you to the site of an ancient holy well.
The only problem is the land this well is on is out of boundaries, and they don’t know who owns it. It lies in a gap of unclaimed/unsurveyed/unregistered land between the boundaries of a local farm, and the boundaries of the land owned by the Warwickshire roads.
So they can’t dig it up until they figure out whose land it is (that’s the rules in England), but this guy is SURE it’s located where he claims the clues lead him.
It’s all quite interesting, but my guess is nothing will be there. Still, this was interesting enough that I thought I should post a little update.
[list=A]
[li]Buried, in Israel[/li][li]Buried, in Egypt[/li][li]Buried, in Italy[/li][li]Buried, in Jordan[/li][li]Extant, in Ethiopia[/li]or
[li]Destroyed.[/li][/list]
Hi Darklighter, and welcome to the boards. I’m sure a mod will be around soon to greet you officially, but I’m assuming that you’re referring to this column?
Actually Darklighter (and welcome) that story makes more sense that the Hancock one. Ehen the 1st Temple was destroyed, the Preists did have a bit of warning. There were “escape tunnels” and they very likely hid the Ark someplace out in the desert.
But since it did not re-appear for the re-building of the temple (does that make the one Herond built the third? I thought it was called the Second?)- likely the few preiets that knew where it was hidden were killed by the Babylonians in the gneral confusion.
Thus, it is not impossible that the templar (who did dig around a bit to find such things) might have found it. Doubtful, yes- but not impossible.
The Staff Report on the Ark of the Covenant, as per the link by picker, was not, in fact, the Master, but little old moi. Hence, I’m moving this to the proper forum, Comments on Staff Reports.
I’ve read the varying theories on this, and frankly I don’t think that Graham Phillips (the man I mentioned in my first post) knows what he’s talking about. He also claimed to have a lot to do with other religious relics (real and invented), but I was just presenting this to the Teeming Masses in effor to keep them abreast of the ongoing interest and debate in the subject.
I think this guy is full of crap, but since the best we have on where the ark is, if anywhere, is primarily based on ancient data and related theories and extrapolations thereof, I’d say that the idea of this theory isn’t as farfetched as it seems.
Your short list of options, from which you seem to imply we must pick one choice, is not comprehensive of all the theories out there.
And though I admit this guy doesn’t seem very reliable, given a topic that has such a wide basis for conjecture I’d suggest that we keep an open mind about this.
I’d like to read his book to see if what he says actually holds water, and until then, or his announcement that he has, in fact, found what he’s been looking for, I’d say we’re no closer to knowing.
I just wanted to offer this extra bit of info.
What really tips me off to this guy’s insincerity, by the way, is that he very publicly stated his theory for where the covenant is on television when he hasn’t had a chance to excavate yet.
No responsible archaeologist, or even serious amateur ark hunter, would do this. The risks of evidence being removed or damaged by members of the public going to this place and digging it up (despite digging rights) is enormous. That alone should suggest he’s full of it.
Well, we could add H. Hidden in the pyramids in Mexico, too, but that seems highly unlikely. The biblical description of the ark includes measurements, material, how it was carried, and lots detail that make it unlikely that it was fiction. Remember that the biblical description of the ark is not like the Indiana Jones ark with supernatural powers, it’s just a box that held treasured relics. It’s not like Noah’s boat (an implausible vessel), so there’s no reason to discard the reality out of hand.
OTOH, it was made of gold, and it is also highly implausible that it survived through various conquests and centuries without being melted down for the intrinsic value.
Arks there may have been, and in any number, type, or era.
But to presume the capitalized Ark of the Covenant, one must also presume an actual set of the Ten Commandments, the historic reality of Aaron and Moses, and the history of the Israelites over multiple generations and events.
Doing all this may give the ark baggage that makes it too heavy to lift.
I cannot prove or disprove any of these things, but I do note that not one wisp of tangible history has ever been associated with the earliest biblical stories of the Jews. One cannot take the Ark out of its context. If the Ark is a real object to have survived then one must accept the actuality of the personalities and events that accompany it.
I don’t believe in belief. The self-deluded have found biblical objects by the boxcarload, but the sum totality of discovery by all professional archaeologists is exactly zero. When discussing possibilities, instructional fiction must be included and must be put atop the list.
Traditionally, the Temple of Herod has always been regarded as Temple 2.1, so to speak.
[ol]
[li]Solomon[/li][li]Ezra, et al., and Herod, too.[/li][/ol]The Emperor Julian, for reasons of his own, offered to pay for a third Temple, but the Jews rejected the offer. There is supposed to be a third Temple when the Messiah comes, but there are problems:
[ul]
[li]Few Jews believe the Messiah has come.[/li][li]It would have to be built on the Dome of the Rock, which would probably trigger World War III.[/li][li]You can’t have a Temple without Priests of Aaron, and there’s some doubt about bloodlines.[/li][li]Many modern Jews are turned off by the idea of animal sacrifice.[/li][/ul]
Not necessarily. The second temple clearly existed, there is undisputed archaeological evidence. The highest probability is that the first temple (the temple of Solomon) existed, only the most extreme revisionists doubt that. It is not unlikely that the Ark was a decorative ornament in that temple. Other decorative elements in the temple are known to exist – for example, there is a Roman carving of the looting of Jerusalem (70 CE) which depicts the menorah, pretty much as described in the bible. You can accept the artifact without the legends going with it.
I usually don’t like using popular sites for scientific backup, but this so neatly and concisely matches what my understanding is of the latest scholarship that it was irresistible.
Of course any later artifacts purporting to be real are going to match the biblical record as closely as possible. That only pushes the question back to the accuracy of the biblical record. Which is entirely unsupported.
I’d like to use the Indiana Jones 1930’s-style Ark-Death Ray on whoever thought up the “it matches the bible, so it must be true” line of circular reasoning. :rolleyes:
From what I understand, a last (or, at least related) reason the Temple can’t be rebuilt at the moment is that it would need to be rebuilt on the exact same spot, as in down to the centimeter. Thus even Jews who have no problem with animal sacrifice would have an issue with the notion of sacrificing to their g-d on the wrong spot, which would be a Bad Thing. There is just no earthly way for Jews today to be able to know this. Only the true Messiah thus could rebuild the Temple. Presumably the true Messiah will cause certain things to occur that would be undeniably miraculous. If not so, how could it be known the person was the true Messiah, and not some impostor just claiming such status?
Thus rebuilding the Temple would require that someone be unquestionably seen as the Messiah. It isn’t like I could just waltz into Jerusalem and start rebuilding the Temple unless I was recognized as the Messiah. Obviously, the Messiah has yet not come (or, has yet to begin his mission as the Messiah.)
There are some Jews who believe that Rabbi Menachem Mendel Shneerson (of blessed memory) was the Messiah. Some still believe he is the Messiah, even though he is dead: they believe he will return, and by then Jews will be ready for him. (Or so I think they believe.)
In any case, what you say is absolutely correct: only the Messiah would be able to pull off something like the rebuilding (or restoration, if it comes from Heaven) of the Temple.
Graham Phillips is from Birmingham. How very convenient for him that the Holy Grail should have turned up in Shropshire, the tomb of the Virgin Mary in Anglesey and now the Ark of the Covenant in Warwickshire.