THE ARK OF THE COVENANT

A Review of Graham Hancock, In the Sign and the Seal: The Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant, 1992 [ I wrote this review in the early 1990s for a traditional mailorder Newsletter that I planned, but did not publish, called Biblical Notes. At that time I was still attracted to unusual subjects and reconstructions. While I remain interested in such matters most promise far more than they deliver and depend on imaginative reordering of the facts. It is nonetheless instructive to read such presentations as they can emphasize the incredible ordering power of the human mind in works of both fact and fiction. In fact they can even blur the edges between the genres reminding scholar and speculative writer of the subjective nature of the material with which we reconstruct the past. By this observation I do not intend to slight either genre as they both have value. Almost twenty years after writing this review I share it, for the first time, in any medium. Please note that I have done no further research on this subject and that some of my ideas may well have been suggested by others in the meantime. by Herbert A. Storck January 2012 ] Almost every undertakingliterary or otherwiseto find the Ark of the covenant can easily be characterized as being a work containing more fiction than fact. From scholars to spiritualists and mystics to creative writers many have sought the whereabouts of this mysterious chest associated with the wanderings of the Hebrews. Most scholars are usually satisfied to state that the Ark was lost or destroyed at the destruction of Jerusalem. They may prove to be the wiser. In recent times, however, a well-written and far ranging book has reopened the quest for this box of gold. Graham Hancock, In the Sign and the Seal: The Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant, 1992 has made a most determined attempt to find the whereabouts of the golden box. His quest did not involve a shovel or casts of thousands as in Raiders of the Lost Ark, but rather, an investigation of living and ancient traditions concerning the Ark. I must confess that I have never been the least bit interested in the location of the Ark but was nevertheless impressed with his tenacious investigation and research. Along the way he has made some possible contributions to our understanding of certain historical events such as the Knights Templar and Ethiopia and also presents a reasonable origin for the early Jewish Ethiopian

communities. He has again brought attention to the similarity of the Egyptian chests used to transport deities and the Hebrew Ark. Alas for the fate of the Ark and its actual location today, he has, at the very least, presented an intriguing but still highly controversial possibility. But we are far ahead of ourselves. Let me first describe some of the steps that Hancock himself has taken and then sum up what we can really say about the Ark and its location. First, Hancock details what he believes is a connection between an inscription in Chartres Cathedral, the tales of the quest for the Grail and the Ethiopian document known as the Kebra Nagast. He also suggests that the Templar mission to Jerusalem involved the search for the Ark beneath the Temple mount an idea that is probably not entirely new. However, they seem to come around to endorsing the Ethiopian claim on this ancient relic. A tightly interwoven and not insignificant pattern of dates and events may suggest this interpretation for which I borrow from David Roths review and summary in Chronology and Catastrophism 1992/2 p. 30 (all dates are CE = Common Era) 1099 Jerusalem seized by the Crusaders 1119 Arrival of the Templars in Jerusalem 1128 Recognition of the Templars in Troyes 1134 Building of Chartres begun 1145 Prester John first heard of in Europe 1160 Prince Lalibela arrived in Jerusalem 1165 Letter from Prester John 1177 Reply from Pope Alexander III 1182 Holy Grail poem by Chretien de Troyes 1185 Lalibela becomes king of Ethiopia 1187 Saladin captures Jerusalem 1189 Saladin granted Ethiopians a place in the church of the Holy Sepulchre 1190-1200 Building of rock-hewn churches in the town of Lalibela, with tell-tale Templar cross 1200-1225 Building of southern and northern porches of Chartres and writing of Parzifal by Wolfram As I have already said this part of his work seems well substantiated and it may be possible that the Templars were convinced of the Ethiopian claim to the possession of the Ark. This also points to a negative conclusion, i.e. the Templar inquiries and excavations beneath the Temple mount must have turned up empty handed. It does indicate that there may have been some tradition suggesting this possible location available to them or else they were just taking making an educated guess. But their lack of success undoubtedly led them to being open to other possibilities. Thus the Ethiopian connection with Europe may have been born.

The next phase of Hancocks investigation was to establish some sort of ancient connection between Ethiopia and Judah. He delves into the possible origins of the Jewish Falashas of Ethiopia from the Jewish military colony at Elephantine. This colony is an absolute historical fact at Elephantine although it was a mixed religious and ethnic community. The date of its beginning is not absolutely certain but a date in late seventh and certainly the sixth century is not unlikely. Its termination came after local conflicts that can be dated to the late fifth century. Thereafter the group completely disappears from history. They were especially characterized by the use of animal sacrifice which may suggest a pre-587 date for their origin. The Jewish colony connection remains a possible proposal for their origin. In the late 5th century the Elephantine group is petitioning Jerusalem for funds to rebuild their local Temple. As far as we know it did not occur. The local Egyptians became independent of the Persians after 400 BCE and the Jewish group disappears from history. It is very unlikely that they went north into Egypt as they would not have been safe there. The only direction available to them was to follow the river south along routes that they knew all too well. This seems the most logical time for the southern Jewish connection to have begun and the movement south to Ethiopia probably occurred in stages over a couple of centuries. Hancock, next, tries to establish a context for the Arks arrival in Elephantine and decides that it was in the time of Manasseh. This is admittedly hypothetical and is in part offered to coincide with the establishment of the colony in Elephantine and a presumed construction of their Temple at that site. There is no way to be certain of this setting for the Arks transport in the seventh century BCE. The history of the Ark from the time of Solomon to the destruction of Jerusalem is certainly unclear, and perhaps deliberately so, but exactly when, if at all, it was removed from the Temple in that period is at best a dubious enterprise. Indeed traditions that have the Ark spirited out of Jerusalem in Manassehs time or even by Jeremiah to mount Nebo strike me as strained. There is simply no substantial basis in fact for the Ark being anywhere but in the Temple at Jerusalem on the eve of the Babylonian conquest. In fact Hancocks own research points us in this direction. In considering the Egyptian origins and possible proto-types for the Ark Hancock seizes upon the sometimes cited connection between Egyptian chests that carried their own deities in processions held aloft on the shoulders of priests by staves. He draws on possible connections with chests found in

the tomb of Tutankhamun and theories of Moses Egyptian origins. Whatever the actual case, if Egyptian gods had their own Arks for transportation and displays why could there not have been more than one Hebrew Ark? After all there were TWO Temples for YHWH which in itself should not have been possible. (This does not even depend on the dating of Deuteronomy which absolutely prohibits more than one place of worship. For if Dueteronomy was written before the Temple of Elephantine it was obviously ignored or unknown to the builders of Elephantine. If Deuteronomy was written after the Temple of Elephantine then it might have been a reaction against such Temple building elsewhere.) But if there could be TWO Temples why not TWO ARKS?? Surely a replica of the Ark in Jerusalem was not as major an undertaking as the building of a second Temple! Thus the very fact of a second Temple invites the speculation of a second Ark as a replica of the one from Jerusalem. One could have been constructed from the account in the OT or based on current Egyptian models and even made by local Egyptian craftsmen. In following this scenario to its logical conclusion it is possible that the Ark of Ethiopia was that from Elephantine. This chest appears to qualify as a genuine artefact worthy of veneration but it does not have to be the original one from Jerusalem. Accordingly we need not discount the value of the relic in Axum, Ethiopia but we need not identify it with that of Temple in Jerusalem. So the question of the fate of the ark in Jerusalem continues to remain a mystery. The proposals for which continue to remain as follows: 1) It was destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 or taken as booty although no record of such remains. Certainly other Egyptian arks were destroyed so destruction is not a priori impossible whatever powers that this box might have held. These powers did not prevent it from being captured, destroyed or even melted down as other arks surely were. Thus capture or destruction remain considerations for the fate of the Ark. Of course this robs one of the joy of outfitting expensive expeditions to find the ark and the distinction of finding it! Also lost would be the opportunity to prove this aspect of the Bible true. 2) Another possibility is that it was buried beneath the Temple mount for which there seems to be some traditional support. In the wake of the Babylonian investment of Jerusalem this would have been the only option available to the priests in 598 or 587 BCE. The earlier date would have been the most probable date of hiding although it may have been hidden and then returned to the Temple after 598 and then hidden

again before the final conquest and destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BCE. In any case a final resting place beneath the Temple mount can still be considered. It does strike one as strange that it was not recovered and placed in the Post Exilic Temple completed in 515 BCE. One could argue that its location was indeed lost although a number of people from that period continued to be alive. 3) Yet another possibility is that the nature of Jewish worship had changed such that it was no longer required or considered significant for the Temple worship. These remain possibilities as well as leave the door open for other locations for the Ark. 4) Finally, there is a tradition that it was taken to Mount Nebo by Jeremiah. But if we are allowing ourselves to speculate why not take it back to Mount Sinai from whence it originated. Then of course the question remains which of the mountains that have been claimed as Sinai could it have been taken to? But I think that this is enough speculation. We can safely say that the exact fate/location of the Ark still remains a mystery although there is probably no shortage of people who think they know where it is. I wish them well. However, the only hard evidence that can be accepted at this point is the box itself and the only reason to look for it would be some genuine 6th century BCE tradition as to its location and not speculations that originated in the Middle Ages. Graham Hancocks contribution to the search for the Ark is to have illuminated the Ethiopian Jerusalem France connection of the 12th century CE. He has opened up new possibilities for the origins of the Jewish Falashas in Ethiopia. I think he has unintentionally shown that the Elephantine Ark may have arrived in Ethiopia but alas his attempt to place the Jerusalem Ark in Elephantine must remain venturesome. I also enjoyed some of his more levelheaded speculations as to the nature of the Ark and sidebars as to ancient technologies and other wanderings. He is able to free himself from the overly rational academic approaches to such possibilities which in their extreme form are in themselves irrational. He is also able to free himself from the more outlandish and unnecessary extra-terrestrial origins of such instruments. Nonetheless one must be careful to not invest themselves too much in such unusual and controversial reconstructions however well written and argued.