You left out “Profit!” and “Hi, Opal!”
By similar reasoning, there never was a river Nile, either, nor a ruler of Egypt titled Pharaoh. Just because one rejects part of an historical myth is no reason to reject all aspects of that myth. You might recall that the city of Troy was deemed myth, until archaeologists found it. That doesn’t mean that the god Ares fought, nor that there was a great wooden horse, but it does mean that ancient myths can have historical basis, or points of contact with what we would consider historical reality.
But if the clock strikes 13, it casts doubt on the other 12.
This is not the same reasoning. The Ark, by definition, was the reliquary used to house the Ten Commandments given to Moses at Sinai. If there was no Moses, no Exodus, no Sinai, no Commandments, where does that leave room for an Ark?
I already said there might have been some other kind of reliquary in the First Temple, but that it couldn’t have had the origin of the article of myth. Read what I said. I said. I said that “no Ark of that literal origin would have ever existed in the first place.” I didn’t say no Ark at all could have existed.
You may not have noticed, but books of the Bible tend to be considerably less comprehensive and detailed than a modern police report.
Powers &8^]
This just seems an odd and tortured way of looking at the matter.
It is like saying there isn’t literally any holy regalia used by the Emperor of Japan, because these things are supposed to have been handed over by the sun goddess, and no such goddess exists.
In fact, the imperial regalia have many points in common with the Ark - they are objects deemed so sacred that only a limited number are ever allowed to even see them, and so their actual existence is undetermined; they are also supposed to have been literally created by a god (godess).
The actual existence of the artifacts is wholly independent of their alleged supernatural origin. Obviously, it is the starting-point that all of these things were made by people (if they actually exist or existed). The fact that these objects had supernatural origin myths doesn’t detract at all from their literal existence as artifacts.
In short, the thread has a point, even though there was never any tablets handed over by God (due to a lack of God).
Dio’s argument isn’t strictly from an atheistic point of view. Biblical scholarship generally considers the book of Exodus to be an origin myth rather than historical. It’s not that the tablets don’t exist because they were made by God and there’s doubt about God existing. The tablets don’t exist because the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt is a legend. There may well have been some item created that people said was from the legend, but it would no more authentic than me creating a sword and calling it Excalibur.
I disagree. Objects are important because people think they are, over a long period of time. The Stone of Scone is important because it is the stone used in Scottish coronations for centuries; enen though its origins are debatable (and there isn’t even any real consensus on what its origins are!). In appearance, it is just a rock. One myth has it that it’s the “stone of Jacob” - a clearly mythological figure. If so, does that make the Stone of Scone non-existent or unimportant? Why then was King Edward I so happy to instal it in Westminister? Why did the modern-day Scots want it back?
The issue here is whether or not an object known as the Ark of the Covenant existed, and if so, what happened to it. The fact that the Ark has a clearly mythological origin (or at least, its contents do) has no more bearing on whether it existed, than the fact that the Stone of Scone has (in some cases) a mythological origin has any bearing on whether it exists.
I suppose you could say that the Stone of Scone cannot possibly be the “real” Stone of Scone because of its mythological origin; but that seems to me to be a tortured, convoluted way of thinking which will convince few. Of course it is “real”, it’s the stone kings have been coronated on for hundreds of years!
Similarly, assuming (what is not proved) that an Ark containing tablets of the law was stored in the Temple of Jerusalem for hundreds of years, it is the “real” Ark even though its origins are (clearly) mythological.
Simply put, I think you have it backwards: it isn’t as if some cabal of priests faked up an Ark after the legend, it is far more probable that the legend grew around an already long-existing artifact to enhance its power. I suspect something similar happened with the Japanese Imperial Regalia, the Stone of Scone, and may other objects held by many to have some sort of inherent power, importance or mana.
The only difference here is that the only actual proof for the existence of the Ark of the Covenant is literary. It is not possible to prove that it “really existed” in the same way as one can with the Stone of Scone, since we lack the object. However, the fact that it had a mythological origin myth doesn’t matter one way or another. It is simply irrelevant to the issue.
So that’s where Pratchett came up with “the Scone of Stone”!
Au contraire, I think it is very important to note that everything about the description of its origin is unlikely to have occurred. Not just the Tablets being carved out by the hand of God, but the actual Exodus itself. If there was no literal Exodus, no Moses, then it is possible there never was an Ark to go missing. That’s a huge point.
I think that’s the crux of the matter. You’re assuming there was an actual object to attach a legend to. But all we know is there is a legend of an Ark, kept in secret and never seen to be confirmed. No records exist of its discovery when the Temple was sacked, no record of it being returned even though the record says many artifacts were returned.
So either this highly secret decorative box was built by priests and then kept in a temple and never shown to anyone but priests until it had to be smuggled out of the Temple and hidden somewhere when the Temple was taken, or there never was a real box in the first place. Or perhaps at one time they did make a super secret box, show it off once, then hide it and eventually melt it down and just protect the legend of the box. When the Temple was sacked, there was no box left to be stolen - the priests had already stolen it.
Well, that’s a reasonable argument, which leaves us having to figure out what happened to the box. But it doesn’t eliminate the alternative option.
Yup. 
Again, that’s just the origin story. The Ark itself is mentioned many times in the more possibly “historical” sections of the OT.
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?
There are many, many references to its actual existence, including parading it about on battlefields and in public, right down to the capture of Jerusalem by Babylon, and after that - nothing.
Most probable explaination: it existed until the capture of Jerusalem, when it was destroyed - either because the Babylonians wished to destroy it as a symbol, or simply to take the gold as booty and throw the rest away.
Again, this whole “super secret” thing doesn’t jibe at all with the biblical accounts. It is true that only priests could go into the holy of holies in the Temple - but the Ark wasn’t always in the holy of holies.
I consider “Hi, Opal!” covered under item 5, Tired Old In-Jokes. That joke was funny once. {Cue TOIJ}
Obviously, you have never read the Bible.
Start with Exodus 25, and see how long you can read the excruciatingly detailed descriptions of the Ark, the tabernacle, the priestly garments, etc. before you get sick of it.
Guilty as charged, though the parts I read have maintain the discrepancy I describe. Particularly about specific events, if not specific items.
Consider, for example, how poorly described the birth of Jesus is.
Powers &8^]
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.
Gee, Dio, one can get the impression that the Jews of old were the greatest liars in the history of mankind.
Not to speak for Diogenes, but can’t we just say that they had a lot of imagination, pretty much like all other societies?
Pretty much every culture in the ancient world had mythic histories and origin stories. The Egyptians, Sumerians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, etc. weren’t any different. The question is why anyone would expect ancient Jewish mythology not to be mythology.
Only the Mossad knows, and they aren’t talking.
What??? You mean a rainbow isn’t really God’s bow in the sky?
So, where is the original prop Ark used in the movie?