The Egyptian Origin of the Ark of the Covenant... David later would don a priestly linen ephod, lead the Ark to the threshing floor, and place it in a tent.Yahweh became the ruler of the entire cosmos

The best non-Israelite parallel to the Ark of the Covenant comes not from Mesopotamia or Arabia, but from Egypt. The sacred bark was a ritual object deeply embedded in the Egyptian ritual and mythological landscapes. It was carried aloft in processions or pulled in a sledge or a wagon; its purpose was to transport a god or a mummy and sometimes to dispense oracles. The Israelite conception of the Ark probably originated under Egyptian influence in the Late Bronze Age.The Ark of the Covenant holds a prominent place in the biblical narratives surrounding the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. Its central role as a vehicle for communicating with Yahweh and as a portable priestly reliquary distinguishes it from all other aspects of the early cult. In varying detail, biblical texts ascribe to the Ark a number of functions and powers, which have led scholars to see the Bible’s portrayal of the Ark as the result of historical development and theological reinter- pretation. While some have looked to Mesopotamia and premodern Bedouin societies for parallels to the Ark, the parallels have remained unconvincing and have contributed to the general view that the Ark was uniquely Israelite. Today I propose that we can gain greater
Near Eastern Languages and Civilization (NELC), University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA e-mail: snoegel@uw.edu
insight into the Israelite Ark and the narratives in which it appears by looking to a hitherto overlooked parallel: the Egyptian sacred bark.
Ark of the Covenant
Biblical texts describe the Ark of the Covenant as a sacred object containing five major features. The first is a wooden box (Heb. ʾaro ̄n), roughly 4 ft. 2.5 2.5, and overlaid with gold. The second is a lid (Heb. kappo ̄reth), made entirely of gold, not plated like the box, which contains a molding running along its top edge. Its third component is a pair of gold kerubˆım, i.e.,“sphinxes," that rest on top of the lid and face each other with their wings touching. Note that the lid was understood as God’s “throne,” whereas the box was viewed as his “footstool” (e.g., 1 Chron 28:2, 2 Chron 9:18, Ps 99:5, 132:7). The Ark’s fourth feature was its wooden poles, which were inserted through four gold rings and never removed. Only the priestly tribe of Levi was permitted to carry the Ark, and even then, only after they had veiled it (Exod 40:3, 40:21). No one of non-priestly descent was allowed to touch it. The Ark’s fifth feature was its contents: the tablets of the law (Deut 10:1–5, ʾaro ̄n hab-berˆıth; Exod 25:22, ʾaro ̄n ha-edu ̄th), a jar of manna (Exod 16:33–34), and possibly the rod of Aaron (Heb 9:4, cf. Num 17:10).In addition to serving as a reliquary, texts attribute two other functions to the Ark. Most prominently, it served as the symbolic presence of Yahweh. In times of war, Yahweh led as the Lord of Hosts, seated upon the kerubˆım, surrounded by standard bearers preceding him. Each standard was topped with a banner representing an Israelite tribe or family line (Num 2:1–34, 10:35, Ps 132:8).8
As the symbolic presence of Yahweh, the Ark was connected to miracles and oracles. Thus, when the priests carried the Ark into the Jordan River the waters parted (Josh 3:8–17), and Moses, Phinehas, Samuel, Saul,9 and David each received divine direction from the Ark (Exod 25:22, 30:6, Num 7:89, Judg 20:27–28, 1 Sam 3:3, 1 Sam 14:18, cf. 2 Sam 2:1, 5:19, 11:11, 10.)15:24
Before the temple was built, the Ark stayed at a number of sanctuaries including Gilgal (Josh 7:6), Shechem (Josh 8:33), Bokhim (Judg 2:1–5), Bethel (Judg 20:27), Shiloh (1 Sam 3:3), Kiriath-Jearim (1 Sam 7:1–2), and Gibeon (1 Kgs 3:4, 1 Chron 16:37–42, 21:29, 2 Chron 1:3–4). During the visits Yahweh would accept sacrifices and bless his sanctuaries. Finally, the Ark acquired a ritual function. On Yom Kippur the high priest would sprinkle bull’s blood onto and in front of the Ark’s lid (Lev 16:14).
Previously Proposed Parallels to the Ark
Scholars have cited two objects as possible parallels for the Ark. The first is a divine palan- quin as seen notably in the Assyrian reliefs of Tilglath Pileser III (744–727 B.C.E.).11 The panel shows the king’s seizure of foreign gods from their temples (Fig. 17.1).12
While some of the gods sit on thrones and might have served as a source of oracles, a num- ber of differences remain. No poles were used to transport them, and there are no boxes and no lids. They were not covered in gold, nor do any of them contain relics or kerubˆım. There is no evi- dence that the statues were carried into battle. Finally, there appear to have been no restrictions on who could touch them. A second object previously compared to the Ark is the Bedouin ʿutfa (also called a mahmal, ̇ 1 ̇3 abu-dhur, markab, and qubba. It accompanied tribes into battle and signalled the presence of the divine. However, the Bedouin transported them on horses or camels. It contained no box, no lid, and no poles. Some were inscribed with spells and Quranic verses, but they never served as reliquaries or as the throne and footstool of God. They were not overlaid in gold, and they contained no kerubım. There also were no restrictions on who could touch them. While the palanquin and Bedouin objects offer some parallels, the dissimilarities limit their usefulness as analogues. Indeed, Menaham Haran long ago observed that the Ark’s origins must be sought not in nomadic life, but in a sedentary community, since the Israelite priests carried it on foot (Haran 1985: 270). Moreover, as Michael Homan has shown (Homan 2002: 113–114), the strongest parallels for the taberna- cle in which the Ark was placed are ancient Egyptian military and funerary tents including the tent-like coverings for funerary barks. This suggests even greater propriety in looking to Egypt for an analogue.
Egyptian Sacred Barks
With this in mind, I should like to propose that the Egyptian sacred bark offers a more compelling and complete parallel for the Ark. Of course, the bark was not merely a boat, but a sacred ritual object deeply imbedded in the ritual and mytho- logical landscapes of the Egyptians. Though they resembled boats, they rarely, if ever, were set in water. Even when they needed to cross the Nile, they were loaded onto barges. Usually, they were carried by hand or in some cases dragged on a sledge or placed on a wagon. The bark’s most basic function was to transport gods and mummies. When transporting gods, the bark was fitted with a gold-plated naos containing a divine image seated on a hwt-block throne, which was veiled with a thin canopy of wood or cloth. When transporting the dead, it carried the sarcophagus within a covered gold-plated catafalque. There is no one type of sacred bark, but rather many variations on a theme, each with its own set of accouchement. Many barks were decorated with protective kerubım, such as the naos of the bark of Amun found on Seti I’s mortuary temple in Qurna and the bark of Horus in the temple at Edfu. Like the Ark of the Covenant, sacred barks were carried on poles by priests, the so-called pure ones (Egyptian: wʿbw), who had performed purification rituals in order to hoist the bark. Though most Egyptian rituals were never witnessed by the public, the procession of the sacred bark was an important exception. It was the focus of an intense series of festivals through- out the year, as many as five to ten per month, which involved loud music and dancing. During the celebrations, priests carried the bark from one shrine to another, and made stops along the way, during which they dramatized mythological scenes. The route and length of the processions varied depending on the gods they carried and their mythologies.The bark also gave oracles. While resting at one of the stations it could be consulted by writ- ten oracles, and while en route during the proces- sion, it could be asked a question to which it would respond yes or no by bowing fore or aft. Some priests marched before the bark wafting incense and others alongside and behind. Some bore standards representing nomes, much like the tribal procession of the Ark of the Covenant (Barta 1965–66). While I know of no sacred bark whose foot- stool contained relics, the placing of oaths beneath the feet of statues is attested. Thus, in a letter from Ramesses II to the Hittite king Hattusilis III, we find the following reference: “The writing of the covenant that [I made] to the Great King, and which the King of Hattu has made with me, lies beneath the feet of [the god Ra]. The great gods are witnesses [to it].” Scholars have long likened this practice to the placing of the covenantal tablets in the Ark’s footstool. In addition, from the 18th Dynasty well into the Roman period, Egyptians fashioned statues of the god Ptah-Sokar-Osiris standing upright on their own coffins. Of interest here is that the coffins often housed copies of the Book of the Dead or small corn mummies. While the Ramesside letter and statue are not exact parallels to the Ark, they share the concept of texts placed beneath the feet of a god. Like their divine counterparts, funerary barks functioned as a means of transport and mytho- logical invocation. However, rather than trans- port images, they ferried the deceased to their tombs. As in the festivals, loud music accompanied burial processions. These processions too were public, though the number of attendees naturally varied.
The bark’s trip to the tomb invoked the jour- ney of the sun as it sailed to the land of the west. Like Ra in his solar bark, the deceased hoped to sail on a cycle of renewal and emerge with him at dawn. Even from this cursory treatment, it should be clear that the Ark and the bark share much in common in both design and function, and each, in its own way, was connected to a historicized. mythology of return. Of course, I am not suggesting that the Ark of the Covenant was in fact a bark; only that the bark served as a model, which the Israelites adapted for their own needs. Thus, the Israelites conceived of the Ark not as an Egyptian boat with a prow and stern and oars, but as a rectangular object, more akin to the riverine boat that informs the shape of Noah’s Ark (6:14–16).30 Nevertheless, some of the bark’s other aspects remained meaningful in Isra- elite priestly culture. It still represented a throne and a footstool and so it still served as a symbol of the divine presence. It continued to be a sacred object that one could consult for oracles, and its maintenance continued to be the exclusive privilege of the priests. Moreover, there is evidence that it retained the chthonic import of its Egyptian prototype. In part this comes from the very name that the Israelites gave the object, an ʾaro ̄n, which also, and per- haps primarily, means “coffin.” As such it appears in the narratives concerning the deaths of the patriarch Jacob (Gen 50:1–14) and his son Joseph (Gen 50:26), both of whom were embalmed according to Egyptian practice and placed in an ʾaron.Underscoring the chthonic nature of the ʾaro ̄n is its frequent association with threshing floors. See, for example, the account of Joseph’s return to Canaan:The narrator does not say why the procession stopped here, but readers are forced to wonder, because Jacob was to be buried at Machpelah (Gen 49:30).33 Also unclear is what the Canaanites saw that suggested an Egyptian. mourning practice.34 While the text mentions the presence of Egyptian officials, they were far outnumbered by the elders of Israel, the house- hold of Joseph and his brothers, and all the members of their father’s household. Indeed, Gen 50:9 states that the group constituted a
However, since the Canaanites identified the mourning ritual as an Egyptian practice, we must ask more specifically what cultic signifi- cance the threshing floor had in Egypt. In Egypt, the threshing floor was most widely associated with Osiris and his cult. I need not ham-mahaneh ka ̄ be ̄ d meʾo ̄ d, “an exceedingly
̇ large camp.” We are told nothing of professional wailing women nor of people dancing nor of an Opening of the Mouth ceremony. Even the length of the event, 7 days, suggests an Israelite mourn- ing practice. Instead, the narrator twice states that the rite took place at a threshing floor. We must consider this as more than a passing refer- ence, for throughout the Near East threshing floors were regarded as numinous places rich with chthonic and fertility associations, and thus, they were loci for cultic activity.However, since the Canaanites identified the mourning ritual as an Egyptian practice, we must ask more specifically what cultic signifi- cance the threshing floor had in Egypt.In Egypt, the threshing floor was most widely
associated with Osiris and his cult. Suffice it to say that he was connected inter alia to the resurrection of the dead38; and
though the etymology of his name is disputed, it is clear already in the Pyramid Texts that the Egyptians identified him with a divine throne, perhaps as the “Seat of Creation” or the “Throne
of the Eye (i.e., Sun).”39 The identification of Osiris with new grain is attested abundantly in the mythological corpora as well as in ritual practices, such as the making of corn mummies
and Osiris beds, the rites found in the Dramatic Ramesside Papyrus, and the “Driving of the Calves” (hw| bhsw) ritual. The latter rite was enacted at a number of public festivals, during
which the threshing of grain was interpreted as the dismemberment of Osiris. After mourning over Osiris, his members were reunited, reinvigorated, and concealed beneath the threshing floor. Since the mourning rites for Osiris took place at a threshing floor, we perhaps can understand why the Canaanites perceived the Israelites’ mourning for Jacob as an Egyptian event, and while the narrator does not offer more than the twofold mention of the threshing floor by way of explanation, the references to the embalming of the patriarchs and their interments in an ʾaro ̄n naturally evoke an Egyptian, if not Osirian, subtext. Additional support comes from a number of talmudic and midrashic traditions, which Rivkah Ulmer has shown to draw heavily upon Osiris mythology when discussing the burial of Joseph in an ʾaro ̄n and the bringing of his bones back to Canaan.Like Osiris, Joseph is said to be buried among the kings and also in the Nile. According to midrash, the Egyptians placed Joseph in a metal coffin and buried him in the Nile in order to bless the river with fertility. Later Moses sum- mons the coffin from the water by using language and paraphernalia suggestive of Egyptian magic. When the coffin surfaces, it is then compared to a sprouting stalk of reed. Moses then carries the coffin away on his shoulders, much like a sacred bark, with all of Israel in procession. Moreover, like the Egyptian ʾaro ̄n in which the patriarchs were buried, the Ark of the Covenant was associated with new grain and the threshing floor. Thus, we find that the Ark’s miraculous crossing of the Jordan took place during harvest time (Josh 3:15).Later, when the Philistines captured the Ark they placed it in the temple of Dagon (1 Sam 1:5). Like Osiris, Dagon was associated with new grain and fertility51 and pos- sessed chthonic aspects, with titles linking him to rites for the dead. Clearly, the chthonic aspect of the Israelite Ark and its association with grain were not lost on the Philistines. Moreover, when the Philistines found their god dismembered before the Ark, they sent it back on a newly constructed wagon. When it reached Beth-Shemesh, the villagers were harvesting grain (1 Sam 6:15). Later, in David’s time, the Ark was heading to the threshing floor of Nakhon,55 when Yahweh killed a layperson for touching it (2 Sam 6:6).56 Even when the Ark accompanied the Israelites on the battlefield, it was housed in a sukka ̄h, a tem- porary “booth” made from foliage (2 Sam 11:11).This term, of course, lies behind the name for the Festival of Sukkoth, which commemorates the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt (Lev 23:42, Deut 16:13–16, Zech 14:16–19, Ezra 3:4, Neh 8:14–17).58 When David conquered Jerusalem, he purchased the city’s main threshing floor after encountering an angel there (2 Sam 24:16–17). He then built an altar on the spot in order to avert a plague, which the Septuagint places during the wheat harvest (2 Sam 24:15–25, 1 Chron 21:16).59 In a lengthy procession amidst music, shouting, frenetic dancing, and burnt offerings, David later would don a priestly linen ephod, lead the Ark to the threshing floor, and place it in a tent. David marked the event as a fertility rite by giving the people gifts of bread loaves and cakes of dates and raisins (2 Sam 6:19).61 The same threshing floor became the site on which Solomon built the temple (1 Kgs 6:19, 8:1–9, 2 Chron 3:1). More- over, Solomon moved the Ark into the temple during the Festival of Sukkoth (1 Kgs 8:2),62 which necessitated processions, dancing, and sacrifices.Such references suggest a correlation between the Ark’s movement and the harvest and again demonstrate that the Hebrew ʾaro ̄ n, whether understood as an Egyptian coffin or the Ark of the Covenant, was intimately connected to threshing floors and their fructifying and chthonic associations.
Possible Context for the Integration and Adaptation of the Bark into the Israelite Cult
To this point, I have argued that Egyptian sacred barks served as models for the Israelite Ark of the Covenant and that consequently the two objects share much in common in design, function, and cosmic import. While no particular bark can be singled out as a prototype for the Ark’s design, the object’s associations with death and fertility, its close relationship with the threshing floor, and the mention of the Israelites’ practice of Egyptian embalming in conjunction with the ʾaro ̄n are suggestive of the cult of Osiris. Exactly how and when the object became an appurtenance of the Israelite cult is difficult to say since biblical texts mythologize the Ark’s creation. Nevertheless, archaeological evidence suggests that the Late Bronze Age provided the best opportunity,66 because it saw an increased Egyptian presence in the Levant (Giveon 1978; Wimmer 1990: 1065–1106; Nakhai 2001). The Egyptians built garrisons, administrative offices, and Egypto-Canaanite temples to facilitate the collection of grain.67 The Canaanite elites, mean- while, often sought to emulate Egyptian customs (Higginbotham 1996: 154–169). Of course, they did not adopt Egyptian practices wholesale, but adaptated them to fit their own religions, as Beth Nakhai observes: These temples blended Egyptian structural or dec- orative elements with Canaanite architectural forms. Egyptian ritual and other objects were found alongside Canaanite cultic paraphernalia. Iconography often exhibited qualities of synthesis rather than exclusivity, but in general the gods and goddesses of Canaan prevailed (Nakhai 2001: 154–155). The Late Bronze Age also saw movements of Canaanites and Egyptians in both directions, and it is at this time that the Merneptah stele records the earliest written evidence for Israelites in Canaan. This was a formative and flexible period in the history of Israelite religion as it also saw the gradual fusion of the Canaanite god El with Yahweh.69 However, of particular relevance here are a great many seals, scarabs, and other objects found in Canaan, which Othmar Keel has shown, attest to the Canaanites’ fascination with Memphis and its god Ptah,70 also known by his syncretistic name, Ptah-Sokar-Osiris.71 Ptah- Sokar-Osiris was at once the creator, the sun, and judge of the underworld, and he was the patron god of craftsmen. Like Yahweh, he cre- ated the world by fiat and was a god of justice who rewarded the righteous and punished sinners with death.It is in this context of Egyptian-Canaanite exchange, Israelite religious syncretism, and Levantine interest in Ptah-Sokar-Osiris that I envision the Israelites’ adaptation of the bark. Those features, functions, and associations that the Ark shared with its prototype represented facets of a shared taxonomy, aspects that made sense in both Egyptian and Israelite religious contexts before the object was integrated. Thus, the Ark retained its significance as a throne and footstool and as the symbol of God’s pres- ence, and it continued to be a source of oracles. By calling the object an ʾaro ̄n, the Israelites retained the Ark’s chthonic associations that resonated with the priestly conception of El Yah- weh as a creator god to whom the first fruits are offered (Lev 23:9–14). On the other hand, those features that did not resonate with the priestly conception of God were refashioned or reconceptualized. Thus, the object’s connection to a boat was obscured by referring to it as a “throne and footstool” and by naming it an ʾaro ̄n, which suggested its use as a coffin. These labels served a dual purpose. As a throne without a statue, the Ark visually con- veyed the aniconic nature of Yahweh (see Mettinger 1995). As a casket without a body, it engrained the notion of Yahweh as a god who cannot die. Concomitantly, the deposition of the tablets into the ʾaro ̄n replaced any suggestion of a divine judge of the underworld with objects that represented Yahweh’s role as divine judge and lawgiver. Thus, Yahweh became the ruler of the entire cosmos from the heavens to the under- world, and “threshing” became an idiom for the judgment and dismemberment of Yahweh’s enemies.By the time of the early Israelite monarchy, the Ark, like the god Yahweh, was perceived as entirely Israelite, though memory of its origins likely remained and required negotiation.79 Hence, it was integrated retroactively into the national epic of the Exodus and intimately tied to Egypt and the first harvest festival.80 This gave the object an aetiology that distinguished it from
81
Egyptian religious practice, one that served the
needs of the priesthood, the royal house, and the national epic. As the centerpiece of the Israelite sanctuary, the Ark of the Covenant stood as the symbolic presence of Yahweh and his legitimation of the Levitical priesthood. As the Lord of Hosts who rides upon the kerubˆım, the Ark legitimated the royal house and its wars. As an Egyptian object transformed and de ́tourned, it offered visual and literary validation of the Exodus.

faculty.washington.edu/snoegel/PDFs/articles/noegel-ark-2...

Taken in: France / Île-de-France / Paris / Quartier Saint-Germain-l'Auxerrois (show map)

Taken on: June 29, 2019

Tags:

taxonomic

taxonomy

chthonic

scarab

throne

sacred bark

angel

kerubim

power

cosmic

plan

astral

extraterrestrial

Bark

glass

Pharaoh

Egypt

athanor

fire

pyramid

holy grail

Ark of Convenient « less

Sets appears in: • Enlightenment, Light Body • Arbre de vie..Jerusalem Celeste..Arche d'Alliance..Lucifer

Camera: Sony ILCE-7RM2, f/5.0, 1/500 sec, 35mm (=52mm), ISO 100 (more info) (hide info)

Camera:	Sony ILCE-7RM2
Aperture:	f/5.0
Exposure Time:	0.002 sec (1/500)
Focal Length:	35mm (35mm equivalent: 52mm)
ISO:	100
Exposure Bias:	0 EV
Flash:	Off, Did not fire
Exposure Program:	Program AE
Exposure Mode:	Auto
Metering Mode:	Multi-segment
White Balance:	Auto
Color Space:	sRGB
Software:	ILCE-7RM2 v3.30
Show full info

Stats: 26,915 views / 2 comments

go back

Link to this photo view:
Link to this photo large view: