Ark of Covenant in Priestly Source

Assuming the documentary hypothesis, firstly we know the Ark was present in other sources, as it is an important part of Joshua - which is decidedly of the Deuteronomist source. The Priestly source is anyway usually taken as mostly a redaction - a rewriting of previous material to emphasise priestly elements - with minimal completely novel information.

Secondly, if an ark was created or planned, where is it or why was the plan not carried out? There is no Persian, Hellenistic, Maccabeaen etc. ark mentioned. In fact, there is rabbinical debate on what happened to it, that may date back to this era.

Now why would the Priestly source mention the ark? Think of it another way, why does P mention the Tabernacle? Just because it is mentioned does not mean they are going to create it. The Tabernacle narrative establishes levels of purity and goes a long way to cement the Levites as a superstructure. The ark narrative could do the same, as only Levites could carry it, and it is to be covered, to shield it from the populace's gaze.
In addition, describing the cherubim on the mercy seat, it essentially establishes the ark as the seder of God. Yet God is not depicted there, so it acts as a way to reinforce Jewish aniconism and separate them from their polytheistic neighbours.

Anyway, if the ark was supposed to miraculously appear, so should the tablets of the Law encased therein. One set of these are supposed to have been cut by God, so if we assume an attempted creation of one, it would strain the credible.
It is anyway unlikely that the Babylonians would have taken the Ark, as the seat of defeated gods were traditionally smashed, as was their altars, to depict their powerlessness. This is similar to how revolutionary movements usually break up Crown Jewels and dismantle thrones.

If anything, the P source likely assumes its readers would understand that the Ark had been destroyed when Jerusalem fell, otherwise they would have added narrative of how it had been spirited away safely.

cloudyday2 said:

I don't know. From what I have read, the Babylonians often brought the idols of defeated enemies back to their capital, because they wanted to be the servants of as many gods as possible. The enemy was defeated, because the god now favored the Babylonians instead. I don't think they would have destroyed the Ark on purpose. Of course it might have burned-up in a fire.

Click to expand...

A mercy seat is a different thing from an idol, as it represents YHWH's 'house' or throne and thus his association and relation to his people. This is why it is the Ark of the Covenant. This is also why it was taken into battle, as a token that God was with them. I find it implausible that the Babylonians would not destroy such an important nationalist token therefore - even if they did not, why would Cyrus not have returned it with Ezra then from the start?

It seems to me that Ezra must have created a replica of the Ark, and he wrote those verses to legitimize the replica. "See? It has exactly the dimensions specified in our sacred Torah of Moses written centuries ago - be careful not to smear that wet ink."

Click to expand...

There is no record of such a thing, so why didn't Ezra then trot out his copy if he made one? The closest thing perhaps is the passage in the books of the Maccabees somewhere, that says Jeremiah hid the Ark away.

Maybe the replica of the Ark was taken later by the Greeks (the incident mentioned in Daniel).

Click to expand...

Which incident in Daniel are you refering to?

cloudyday2 said:

How do we know there wasn't an Ark of the Covenant in Herod's Temple? The Ark seems to be the artifact that symbolically encapsulates Judaism. It makes no sense to have a Temple without an Ark inside. Even if the original was lost, they would have consecrated a new one IMO.

Is there anything written from that period mentioning the absence of the Ark of the Covenant from the Temple?

Click to expand...

Hellenistic writers thought the Holy of Holies was either empty (as in some accounts of Pompey or Antiochus IV's desecration thereof), or contained the head of an Ass (refuted by Josephus, but a common myth in Hellenistic times as referenced by Apion).
If there had been an Ark, it would have been depicted on the Arch of Titus along with the other treasures of the Temple, like the Menorah, when Rome sacked it. It is thus fairly clear there was no Ark by 70 AD.

cloudyday2 said:

Antiochus IV Epiphanes. I suppose the Greeks might have hauled-away whatever Ark resided in the Temple at that time. Or they might have simply pushed it off into a corner somewhere. IDK

Click to expand...

Our accounts suggest the Holy of Holies was empty when Antiochus IV rededicated the temple to a syncretic Zeus.
The books of the Maccabees were written to justify their campaigns, and they do not mention anything of the sort - in fact say the Ark had been hidden by Jeremiah, as I mentioned earlier. So I am fairly confident there was no ark then either.

It's possible that the Jews hid the Ark before Herod's Temple fell, so it wouldn't have been on the Arch of Titus. They could have simply dug a pit inside a secure building somewhere in Jerusalem and then hauled the Ark there for burial under the floor (as an example). Of course there is the tradition about the Ark being in a cavern under the Temple Mount too.

Click to expand...

If there had been such a notable relic like the Ark, the Romans would have hunted for it, and Josephus would then have had an account thereof. Rome understood the power of symbols, hence spent years and much effort to recapture lost Legion eagles, like those of Crassus or Quinctillius Varus; and hunting their enemies to the ends of the earth, such as Arminius and Hannibal.

I think that Temple Mount tradition is related to the passage in 2 Maccabees, although that is usually associated with mount Nebo.

cloudyday2 said:

Is seems to me that every synagogue has container for the Torah scroll - much like the Ark of the Covenant.

The Ark was made of wood, and it would probably have needed to be repaired and replaced periodically due to rot and termites and so forth (if it wasn't lost or stolen before that happened). I'm sure the priests were accustomed to the idea that they needed to repair and maybe even replace these temple furnishings at times.

So why would the Exiles build a Temple and not put an Ark of some kind inside - even if it was simply a replica with a Torah scroll and perhaps some small gold figurines representing the items the original contained?

Leaving the space for the Ark empty was like saying that the Hebrews no longer had a covenant with God. That would be the wrong message to be saying IMO.

Click to expand...

This seems plausible, that some replacement or analogue of the ark was present, I agree. I don't think it would have been seen as the original though.

cloudyday2 said:

the Priestly Source was supposedly composed during the Exile in Babylon or shortly thereafter.
Priestly source - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

This is wrong.

Hey.. don't some of them like to wear socks in a nudist colony? You can still be a nudist and wear socks right? Lol.

cloudyday2 said:

Your comment is as helpful as a sewing kit in a nudist colony. (Sorry I heard that somewhere and wanted to use it myself. LOL Actually I'm sure most members of CF agree with your opinion.)

Click to expand...

I simply pointed out that your question is based on a questionable assumption. If you like to continue your exploration, it is fine with me. Your time is yours.

cloudyday2 said:

I was just thinking about the belief among Greeks that Jews worshiped the statue of an ass or an ass's head. I wonder if there was some truth to this. For pagans the idea of worshiping an ass wasn't exactly scandalous. Look at Balaam's faithful ass and the idea of a Jewish king entering Jerusalem on an ass. If you want to slander Judaism, why not claim that their temple contained the statue of an animal with more negative meaning such as a vulture?

So that makes me wonder if there was some sort of ass statue. There is also mention of a golden vine, and that sounds somewhat like Aaron's branch. Of course there is also the idea of the vine of David and the expected Messiah. IDK

Here is the article with more details:
ASS-WORSHIP - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Click to expand...

To be fair, by the time of the return from exile, Judaism was strongly aniconic. This can even be seen in other narratives, like the Deuteronomist or Yahwist. The decalogue and golden calf is Yahwist, and aniconism is strong in the Deuteronomist history's condemnations in Joshua. The northern prophets that inform the Elohist are also strongly so. Hence when the Temple was rebuilt, the chances of a statue representing YHWH being placed therein, are almost non-existent.

Likewise, when Antiochus IV desecrated it by attempting syncreticism, he chose Zeus - and Hadrian chose Capitoline Jupiter. If Antiochus had entered the Holy of Holies and found an Ass, likely he would have chosen Dionysius as the Interpraetio Graecorum equivalent, not Zeus. Dionysius as a sort of supreme god was fairly common in Ionia, and had an association with the Ass. This is seen even further by Selinus riding on one. Furthermore, other narratives report the Holy of Holies empty when both Pompey and Antiochus defiled it. So I don't think history supports the Ass statuary being present, and it is much more likely it is just a hellenistic insult.

Why an ass was chosen is simple. Judaism has an appreciation of the ass, being a hardy animal that can survive in tough conditions. As mentioned, we have Balaam, but we also have stories of donkeys finding springs in the desert in Exodus, and even King Saul being chosen when he looked for donkeys. Prophets riding donkeys were a recurring motief, hence Jesus entered on one or the High Priest usually travelled thereby. So if you are going to ascribe an animal to YHWH with a chance of being taken seriously, an Ass would be a good bet. It also allows an association with Set or Typhon to be made, which strengthened the negative connotation of the association, if your goal is an anti-Jewish slur.

The question could perhaps be asked of the First Temple though, as the Jewish temple at Elephantine seems to have had a representation of YHWH. We also know the ethnically related Edomites and more distantly related Moabites both revered donkeys as well. In addition, the Set animal may be an Ass, and Set was a storm god. Early YHWH narrative suggests a storm god, so a syncreticism with Set in the Bronze Age, before the nasty decline in his reputation due to the rise of the Osiris legends, could be argued.
However, an equal if not better argument for a Bull or Calf could be made, based on the Golden Calf narratives of Sinai, Bethel and Dan.
Regardless if the Israelites had conceived YHWH in a bull or ass form, by the time of the writing of the Pentateuch, of all four parts in the documentary hypothesis, aniconism was established. So either there never was any such depiction, or it was already chucked out under Josiah's reforms if present, or when things like the Nehusthan were removed by Hezekiah.

cloudyday2 said:

It seems that the statue didn't need to be a representation of YHWH. One report described a man riding a donkey with a book which was assumed to be Moses with the Torah. Another report was a hidden golden figurine of a vine and an ass. This reminds me of the tradition of burying items in the foundations of temples. Maybe the Jews had some items from the First Temple that they considered sacred and installed somewhere in the Second Temple. Then the Greeks discovered this item and concluded that the Jews must worship it.

Click to expand...

To quote Josephus on Herod's Golden Eagle:

"Now when these men were informed that the king was wearing away with melancholy, and with a distemper, they dropped words to their acquaintance, how it was now a very proper time to defend the cause of God, and to pull down what had been erected contrary to the laws of their country; for it was unlawful there should be any such thing in the temple as images, or faces, or the like representation of any animal whatsoever. Now the king had put up a golden eagle over the great gate of the temple, which these learned men exhorted them to cut down"

So by the time of Herod it was considered unlawful, and the success of the Pharisees in removing the Golden Eagle Herod had erected over the gate, makes it unlikely there were other images in the Temple by this time. Similarly the affair of the Votive Shields of Pilate as well. Regardless, both of these show that on occasion people in power did try and add images in Temple grounds.

This does not mean there might not have been images prior to this. The Menorah is essentially a stylised Almond branch and the Mercy Seat itself had two Cherubim; similarly the Nehusthan and so forth that had been removed previously in the First Temple.
Probably the attempted syncreticism by Antiochus IV made the Jewish establishment wary of any images at all in the Temple. Any attempt to add images, seems to be painted as desecration thereafter.

So maybe there had been images of a donkey, or of Moses, before the Hasmonaean revolt; which might have led to the mistaken Hellenistic belief of Ass worship. It is certainly possible, but by the time Rome had anything to do with Judaea, the Temple certainly had no images therein - except for the one or two occasions mentioned above that prompted civil unrest and religious anger.

cloudyday2 said:

It seems to me that either the Priestly Source is more ancient than the Exile or an Ark of the Covenant must have existed when the Jews returned from Exile.

According to Wikipedia, Exodus 25-31 is from the Priestly Source of the Documentary Hypothesis. Exodus 25:10-16 describes the Ark of the Covenant. Furthermore, the Priestly Source was supposedly composed during the Exile in Babylon or shortly thereafter.
Priestly source - Wikipedia

Why would the authors of the Priestly Source describe the Ark of the Covenant if they no longer had this artifact? If I was an Ezra splicing the Torah together and adding the Priestly Source material in preparation for a return from Exile, I would NOT mention the Ark of the Covenant unless I either had the original or had created a new one.

Any thoughts? Of course I know the Documentary Hypothesis has been replaced by more elaborate hypotheses, but I think these new hypotheses only different on the details.

Click to expand...

The priestly Source P. Dates to the reign and religious reforms of King Hezekiah. In 700. BC.

The Temple of Solomon, the first temple did in fact, how's the Tabernacle and the Ark as indicated by references to the same? In both J&P?

Please read Richard Elliott Friedman's book, "The Bible with source is revealed." Here is one comment from the book relating to exodus 26.

cloudyday2 said:

Actually I read that book a few years ago, but I don't recall the section you quoted. When Friedman says "Tabernacle" does he mean the Ark of the Covenant or does he mean the tent used in the Exodus?

Click to expand...

pretty sure he means the TENT, he always refers to the ark separately

he says the ark was kept in the first temple, but the tabernacle was housed at the shrine of Eli and Samuel at Shiloh farther north