# What happened to the Ark of the Covenant? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [December 8, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-the-ark-of-the-covenant/563450 "2010-12-08T18:47:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-the-ark-of-the-covenant/563450/41 "2011-01-24T15:34:41Z")
> [@brocks](#): > > More historical than Genesis and Exodus, maybe, but that’s a pretty low bar. The conquest of Canaan and the battles with the Philistines are more legendary than historical. Scholarly consensus is trending toward the minimalist theory that even David and Solomon were, at best, local chieftans, rather than the rulers of a powerful empire. > > And it is a fact that there is no indication, not even in the Apocrypha or Talmud, that the Ark was ever displayed in public again after Solomon first placed it in the Temple, allegedly some 400 years before the Bible began to take recognizable form. Actually, scholarly consensus had it that the Davidic dynasty was more or less purely legendary, until twently or so years ago and the discovery of the Tel Dan Stele. > **[Tel Dan stele](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele)** > > The Tel Dan Stele is a fragmentary stele containing an Aramaic inscription which dates to the 9th century BCE. It is the earliest known extra-biblical archaeological reference to the house of David. The stele was discovered in 1993 in Tel-Dan by Gila Cook, a member of an archaeological team led by Avraham Biran. Its pieces were used to construct an ancient stone wall that survived into modern times. The stele contains several lines of ancient Hebrew. The surviving inscription details th > These... Now, the better view appears that there _was_ a Davidic dynasty; this makes much more probable the existence of a Solomonic temple, and such artifacts as the Ark. Naturally it does not _prove_ the existence of same, but to my mind the internal evidence is reasonably compelling, to wit: if one were to create a pure legend about an almighty holy object, one would expect that, when it was used in the (allegedly purely legendary) battles with the Philistines, it would succeed in routing them - not fail miserably and end up a Philistine _trophy_. What’s the point of creating a pure legend about a relic that demonstrates it is totally worthless in battle? Far more likely, seems to me, that there was some sort of relic known as the Ark, conforming more or less to the description in the OT; that the Hebrews did believe it was holy and had magic powers; and that the stories about this object were written concerning real incidents in order to explain away why, in spite of possession of this holy object, the Hebrew tribes _still lost their battles_. I for one don’t see why this is so absurd or difficult to accept - many cultures have holy objects filled with some sort of sacred mana and alleged to be handed over by dieties etc. - see the above Japanese example. You don’t have to literally believe in the sun goddess of Japan to believe that the sacred regalia, as objects, exists. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-the-ark-of-the-covenant/563450/42 "2011-01-24T16:11:13Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Naturally it does not _prove_ the existence of same, but to my mind the internal evidence is reasonably compelling, to wit: if one were to create a pure legend about an almighty holy object, one would expect that, when it was used in the (allegedly purely legendary) battles with the Philistines, it would succeed in routing them - not fail miserably and end up a Philistine _trophy_. What’s the point of creating a pure legend about a relic that demonstrates it is totally worthless in battle? I can construct a scenario that “proves” the opposite: Everybody loves the underdog. Fight harder to win back our sacred ark! An upset story is more exciting. Look how badly our God has been treated, rally 'round the ark and slay the infidels! The heathens give us no respect! Not to mention a common literary device: it’s always darkest before the storm. Anyone can write a story and end it any way they wish. Maybe the writer had a grudge and wanted to “punish” the Israelites and/or ruling class. You can’t use a writer’s imagination or storytelling skills to prove history. ---
**Author:** ![AshenLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/94ad74/32.png) [@AshenLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AshenLady)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-the-ark-of-the-covenant/563450/43 "2011-01-24T16:13:09Z")
The Ark is a Hebrew thing. It isn’t meant for folks outside the tribe. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-the-ark-of-the-covenant/563450/44 "2011-01-24T16:27:08Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > I can construct a scenario that “proves” the opposite: > > Everybody loves the underdog. Fight harder to win back our sacred ark! An upset story is more exciting. Look how badly our God has been treated, rally 'round the ark and slay the infidels! The heathens give us no respect! Not to mention a common literary device: it’s always darkest before the storm. > > Anyone can write a story and end it any way they wish. Maybe the writer had a grudge and wanted to “punish” the Israelites and/or ruling class. You can’t use a writer’s imagination or storytelling skills to prove history. Which appears more _probable_ to you - that the Israelites would create out of whole cloth a legend about a sacred object that did not work, or that the stories were written about a real object? To my mind, while of course no one can “prove” beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a long-vanished object, its existence seems more probable than not, for two reasons: 1. The written text of the OT is more consistent with its existence than its non-existence, particularly given the fact that it is depicted _failing_ to perform miracles. While written evidence, particularly from a source so full of obvious legend and mythology, is not _conclusive_ evidence, it is also not _no evidence_; and 2. There is nothing inherently unlikely about the existence of such an object. Many, many cultures have sacred cult objects. Why not the Hebrews? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-the-ark-of-the-covenant/563450/45 "2011-01-24T16:51:36Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Actually, scholarly consensus had it that the Davidic dynasty was more or less purely legendary, until twently or so years ago and the discovery of the Tel Dan Stele. This is incorrect. There was never anything close to such a consensus. > [@](#): > > Now, the better view appears that there _was_ a Davidic dynasty; this makes much more probable the existence of a Solomonic temple, and such artifacts as the Ark. This is also incorrect. While some kind of Davidic dynasty is a possibility (though the interpertation of the Tel Dan Stele is not cut and dried), it does not provide any evidence at all for an Ark of the Covenant. he existence of a first Temple is not and never has been in any serious doubt (though there is no evidence for a Solomon), and it was always a majority assumption that a David existed in some form. the Minimalist movement is fairly recent and was not a mjority. I don’t know where you got this impression of a scholarly consensus dismissing David and Solomon as purely legendary, but it has never been a reality. What has changed is the assumption that there was ever a unified kingdom of the north and south. David was, at best, a local chieftain of trivial significance. > [@](#): > > Naturally it does not _prove_ the existence of same, but to my mind the internal evidence is reasonably compelling, to wit: if one were to create a pure legend about an almighty holy object, one would expect that, when it was used in the (allegedly purely legendary) battles with the Philistines, it would succeed in routing them - not fail miserably and end up a Philistine _trophy_. What’s the point of creating a pure legend about a relic that demonstrates it is totally worthless in battle? Who said the battles with the Philistines were legendary? Just because some parts of the Bible have no historical basis doesn’t mean none of them do. The story of the Philistine captivity of the ark may have had some historical basis in tribal legend. Those arks were not unique to the Israelites. It was normal for tribes to carry their patron gods around in arks - the Bible just made sure that everyone knew the Israelite ark was the bestest, most magical and most superpowerful of all of them). It’s possible (as I said upthread) that the Israelites had some kind of old tribal totem that got taken away from them by the Philistines, but it wasn’t “The Ark Of The Covenant,” as it is defined in the Bible because _that_ story _is_ purely legendary. I think the Philistine captivity of the ark reads like a sour grapes story. The Philistines kick the Israelites’ asses and take their little ark, but then they get hemorrhoids from God (I’m not making that up. God gives them hemorrhoids) so they give it back. “Yeah, they beat us, but God made them pay”). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-the-ark-of-the-covenant/563450/46 "2011-01-24T16:53:55Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > 1. There is nothing inherently unlikely about the existence of such an object. Many, many cultures have sacred cult objects. Why not the Hebrews? They could have had _an_ object, but the didn’t have the object described in the Bible. It’s possible that King Arthur was based on some historical figure, and it’s probable that such a historical figure would own a sword, but that doesn’t mean it’s possible that Excalibur existed. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-the-ark-of-the-covenant/563450/47 "2011-01-24T17:41:36Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is incorrect. There was never anything close to such a consensus. > > This is also incorrect. While some kind of Davidic dynasty is a possibility (though the interpertation of the Tel Dan Stele is not cut and dried), it does not provide any evidence at all for an Ark of the Covenant. he existence of a first Temple is not and never has been in any serious doubt (though there is no evidence for a Solomon), and it was always a majority assumption that a David existed in some form. the Minimalist movement is fairly recent and was not a mjority. I don’t know where you got this impression of a scholarly consensus dismissing David and Solomon as purely legendary, but it has never been a reality. What has changed is the assumption that there was ever a unified kingdom of the north and south. David was, at best, a local chieftain of trivial significance. There certainly has been doubt about the existence of a Davidic dynasty and that of a first Temple. Some in the “Copenhagen School” expressly rejected any notion of a “historical Israel” existing prior to that of archeological artifacts demostrating its existence - which, at the time of The Copengagen School, was about 875 BC. Moreover, there has never (or at least, until recently) been any achaeological evidence whatsoever for the existence of the first temple. It has no more “existance” than the Ark. See for example Niels Peter Lemche, who has gone so far as to state that the Tel Dan inscriptions are a forgery. > [@](#): > > Who said the battles with the Philistines were legendary? Just because some parts of the Bible have no historical basis doesn’t mean none of them do. Please read the poster I was responding to, who stated as follows: > [@](#): > > The conquest of Canaan and the battles with the Philistines are more legendary than historical. I’m not of the opinion that they were “legendary”, I’m responding to someone who said that they were. > [@](#): > > The story of the Philistine captivity of the ark may have had some historical basis in tribal legend. Those arks were not unique to the Israelites. It was normal for tribes to carry their patron gods around in arks - the Bible just made sure that everyone knew the Israelite ark was the bestest, most magical and most superpowerful of all of them). It’s possible (as I said upthread) that the Israelites had some kind of old tribal totem that got taken away from them by the Philistines, but it wasn’t “The Ark Of The Covenant,” as it is defined in the Bible because _that_ story _is_ purely legendary. We don’t disagree on this … just on your quibbling that because an object has a legendary origin myth, it isn’t 'real". > [@](#): > > I think the Philistine captivity of the ark reads like a sour grapes story. The Philistines kick the Israelites’ asses and take their little ark, but then they get hemorrhoids from God (I’m not making that up. God gives them hemorrhoids) so they give it back. “Yeah, they beat us, but God made them pay”). My opinion exactly, as stated upthread. There is no point to writing a “sour grapes” story that is pure mythology. My post #30: > [@](#): > > The Ark is mentoned several times. It was, for example, allegedly captured by the Philistines, but when they were afflicted with hemarroids (I shit you not! ), they decided to return it. > > This strikes me as a legendary explaination for a real event - the “mana” of the Ark signally _failed_ to aid in the defeat of the Philistines. If it was pure legend, there would be no need for this ‘yeah we were defeated and the Ark taken, but man, God messed with them - they got hemaroids!’ stuff, right? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-the-ark-of-the-covenant/563450/48 "2011-01-24T18:23:17Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > There certainly has been doubt about the existence of a Davidic dynasty and that of a first Temple. Doubt about David, yes. Scholarly consensus, no. Significant doubt about the Firts Temple, never. > [@](#): > > Some in the “Copenhagen School” expressly rejected any notion of a “historical Israel” existing prior to that of archeological artifacts demostrating its existence - which, at the time of The Copengagen School, was about 875 BC. Moreover, there has never (or at least, until recently) been any achaeological evidence whatsoever for the existence of the first temple. It has no more “existance” than the Ark. This is all true, but the mainstream consenus has still always been to assume there was a First Temple. The lack of archaeological evidence is explained by the fact that Herod completely razed the Temple Mount for the 2nd Temple and because archaeolgiocal investigation of the site is all but impossible for obvious political reasons. Nevertheless, there is still a strong assumption that a First Temple existed, even though it’s Solomonic origins may be a fable. > [@](#): > > See for example Niels Peter Lemche, who has gone so far as to state that the Tel Dan inscriptions are a forgery. I haven’t seen this, usually the objections are to the intepretation of BYTDWD as “House of David,” when the one word construction more commonly designated a place name. I’ve also seen some suggestions that the reconstruction of the broken block which bears the inscription may have been done selectively, but I have not seen arguments before that the inscription was flat out forged. > [@](#): > > I’m not of the opinion that they were “legendary”, I’m responding to someone who said that they were. I think I may have misunderstood your intention. I sometimes see traditionalists who exaggerate the skepticism of scholars, and I thought that’s what you were doing. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-the-ark-of-the-covenant/563450/49 "2011-01-24T18:55:38Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > So, where is the original prop Ark used in the movie? I wondered if the Ark seen briefly in _Indiana Jones and the Second Sucky Installment_ (i.e. Crystal Skull) was the one from the original movie. Hijack/Trivia for anyone not familiar: R2D2 and C3PO are seen on a hieroglyph in that scene from the first movie. [Pic.](http://www.dockerydesign.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/r2d2-c3po-indiana-jones.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![dhkendall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9adbd/32.png) [@dhkendall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dhkendall)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-the-ark-of-the-covenant/563450/50 "2011-01-24T19:18:29Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > > So, where is the original prop Ark used in the movie? > > I wondered if the Ark seen briefly in _Indiana Jones and the Second Sucky Installment_ (i.e. Crystal Skull) was the one from the original movie. > > Hijack/Trivia for anyone not familiar: R2D2 and C3PO are seen on a hieroglyph in that scene from the first movie. [Pic.](http://www.dockerydesign.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/r2d2-c3po-indiana-jones.jpg) Heh, I was going to say that “the original was melted down to build C3PO for the prequels”, but yours ties everything together better! I don’t think this question was covered: the fact that, if the Ark existed, the Babylonians just melted it down / stripped it of its gold seems the most likely (Occam’s Razor and all) because they have more value to them as gold than religious artifacts. But, if the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments were in there, what would have happened to them? I get the impression that the only inherent value in them is the religious ones placed on it by the Jewish people of the time, unlike the Ark, which had enough gold to make the Babylonians take notice, the Tablets I gather were just ordinary stone tablets, not really much good of anything to anyone else. What would they have done with _those_? (Yes, the above works under the assumption that the Tablets actually existed, and that they were in the Ark, and that the Ark was carried away by Babylonians as treasure.) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-the-ark-of-the-covenant/563450/51 "2011-01-24T19:27:51Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Doubt about David, yes. Scholarly consensus, no. Significant doubt about the Firts Temple, never. > > This is all true, but the mainstream consenus has still always been to assume there was a First Temple. The lack of archaeological evidence is explained by the fact that Herod completely razed the Temple Mount for the 2nd Temple and because archaeolgiocal investigation of the site is all but impossible for obvious political reasons. Nevertheless, there is still a strong assumption that a First Temple existed, even though it’s Solomonic origins may be a fable. See, this I don’t understand. It makes sense to me, in theory, to reject the historicity of the OT as a matter of principle and to only follow the archaeological evidence (though I regard that as extreme, of course): but having done so, the 1st Temple really has no better claim for existence than David, Solomon etc. - unless there are some contemprary non-biblical descriptions of it. So far, there isn’t much actual evidence of its literal existence outside the OT. I agree, BTW, with the reasons - it was cleared away to make way for the 2nd one. > [@](#): > > I think I may have misunderstood your intention. I sometimes see traditionalists who exaggerate the skepticism of scholars, and I thought that’s what you were doing. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. No problemo. I don’t think I’m really a “traditionalist” though. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-the-ark-of-the-covenant/563450/52 "2011-01-24T19:32:22Z")
> [@dhkendall](#): > > Heh, I was going to say that “the original was melted down to build C3PO for the prequels”, but yours ties everything together better! > > I don’t think this question was covered: the fact that, if the Ark existed, the Babylonians just melted it down / stripped it of its gold seems the most likely (Occam’s Razor and all) because they have more value to them as gold than religious artifacts. But, if the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments were in there, what would have happened to them? I get the impression that the only inherent value in them is the religious ones placed on it by the Jewish people of the time, unlike the Ark, which had enough gold to make the Babylonians take notice, the Tablets I gather were just ordinary stone tablets, not really much good of anything to anyone else. What would they have done with _those_? > > (Yes, the above works under the assumption that the Tablets actually existed, and that they were in the Ark, and that the Ark was carried away by Babylonians as treasure.) Again assuming they ever existed, etc., it seems most likely that the babylonians simply deliberately smashed them, exactly because they were important to the Hebrews. Destroying artifacts linked to a rival civilization is a good demonstration of subjegation. What could be more demoralizing? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-the-ark-of-the-covenant/563450.md?page=2)