Talk:Ark of the Covenant

Multiple Arks

Midrashic traditions not represented in the current article (but quoted by Rashi, for example), state that there were multiple arks. In particular, the ark carried into battle was not the same as the one that remained housed in the Tabernacle. (It is therefore possible that some of the traditions about the ark being carried off to various locations refer to arks captured in battles, and the Temple Ark could remain hidden beneath the Temple Mount could all be valid without contradiction.) Drsruli (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia listens to modern Bible scholars. Who are the modern Bible scholars?

Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:

• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;

• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;

— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Entirely out of topic, tgeorgescu. Drsruli is not talking about the authority of the Bible, but traditions in the Midrash. Dimadick (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Which, THIS Wikipedia article includes traditions found in the Midrash and quoted by Rashi. Drsruli (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this an article about a real object?

Does it or has it ever existed? Where is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutely Certainly (talk • contribs) 00:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

If it existed, it has probably been destroyed since the 1st millennium BC. Dimadick (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, as alluded in the article, the Bible mentions that Josiah hid the ark around 1000 BCE, and the Talmudic tradition is that it remained there, buried in the catacombs beneath The Temple, approximately beneath its previous location. As I mentioned above, similar traditions recorded the existence of multiple arks, one (or more) of which may have been captured and carried away. Other Temple items were plundered by the Romans and removed to Rome (and one may speculate that they may be buried in the Vatican somewhere). (However by this time, it is acknowledged that the Ark had not been present in The Temple for over 500 years.) (And of course, some even believe that the Ark is buried in the Smithsonian archives.)

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_menorah Drsruli (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

If? Are you serious? The encyclopaedia of ifs? Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

We follow what has been published in reliable sources. Unless you're suggesting that scholarly consensus has shifted and that it is an accepted viewpoint that the Ark of the Covenant never existed, then yes we cannot make qualified statements that reliable sources do not. - Aoidh (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The Bible is a reliable source? Any evidence? Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The Bible is a primary source. It is only logical that, if you're looking to prove what the Bible says, that you use the Bible as a source. If you'll notice, this article does not say "X is true" with a reference to the Bible to back it up. What it does say is "In the Book of Whatever, it says X" and that is perfectly acceptable, factual, and verifiable. Are you arguing that the Bible is not a reliable source for what is contained in the Bible? I'm honestly confused what the issue is here. - Aoidh (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

My view is you have not proven the existence of the ark. Go ahead. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I accept that you have that view. It's irrelevant. - Aoidh (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)