Live Blogging ‘The Quest For The Lost Ark’

[Originally posted Mar 2 at 9:59 P.M.]-

UPDATE: It’s been a little over a week since the program aired. In the meanwhile I’ve attended the regional SBL and while there happened upon a book titled Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, edited by John Day and published by Continuum. In it sits an essay that Parfitt certainly should have read but clearly didn’t and which anyone seriously interested in the story of the Ark of the Covenant must read (and authored by Day himself): “Whatever Happened to the Ark of the Covenant?” He critically examines the various theories of the ark’s history. Again, for those interested in the ark of the covenant, this is must reading.

Segment One: “I’m sure it’s the ark of the Bible- the Ark of Moses” opines Parfitt in the opening of the artifact he has ‘discovered’. Thus begins his journey to discover the ‘holiest object on earth.’ It was a ’superweapon of it’s day’. Oddly - while Parfitt accepts the biblical narrative when it describes the existence of the ark, he rejects that same narrative when it comes to a description of the ark. This bodes ill for what will follow since it indicates that Parfitt already knows what sort of object he wants the ark to be and we will not be surprised when he later discovers just such an object. His reasoning- the ark must be similar to an Egyptian ‘ark’ because it’s the only sort of thing they could have built in the wilderness. So he sets Deuteronomy in opposition to Exodus as it’s ‘ark’ description aligns with his presumptions.

[As an aside- Victor Hurowitz appears as a talking head].

Segment Two: The segment jumps ahead from Exodus to David and the ark’s home in the Tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon. That Temple was constructed in 1000 and stood for 400 years, according to Parfitt. First Temple artifacts, though, are still available in the debris being tossed aside by the Waqf. How this proves the existence of the ark or the ark which Parfitt will ‘find’ is never specified. Gibson argues that the ark may not have been taken to Babylon - but Parfitt imagines that since the siege of the Babylonians lasted a year there was ample time for the ark to be hidden. Was it hidden under the Western Wall? Or in some huge cavern beneath the city? One can imagine, as the segment concludes, that the answer will be no. Many ‘false trails’ will be followed, I imagine, before Parfitt drops the other shoe and shows up in Africa.

[Talking heads included Shimon Gibson, Gabriel Barkay]

Segment Three: Jerusalem proves to be a dead end in the quest for the ark. It wasn’t captured or destroyed by any enemy and we know that since if it had been the Jews would have lamented it! That’s a curious string of reasoning. If it had been destroyed they would have lamented and since they didn’t lament it wasn’t? So what happened to it? Where did it go? Perhaps through a series of caverns towards Jericho? And would the ark have survived under the Temple Mount - a rather damp place- without damage? After all, it’s wood. So it has to be somewhere else, doesn’t it? And off we go to Europe where the Knight’s Templar may have taken it (even though there isn’t a shred of evidence for it). So England too proves to be a dead end. It’s not in Jerusalem or Europe or even Qumran! The place where he will search in Segment Four.

[New talking heads were folk I'd never heard of]

Segment Four: As I await the beginning of this section I wonder half aloud to myself - and within earshot of my suffering wife- Parfitt wouldn’t have found the ark here in Petros either. I wonder why he didn’t come looking here too, since he seems to be saying an awful lot about where it isn’t even though he is presuming that it IS somewhere. That, in my opinion is the hugest of assumptions. But we all know that when you want to find something badly enough, you’re bound to find it.

In any event, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the caves at Qumran come to the fore. You ought not write a book or a film these days about some biblical theme without hauling the scrolls in. It’s required. Indeed, the Copper Scroll is named in particular. Maybe it describes the place where the ark was taken!!!! If the scroll knew of the ark at the destruction of the Second Temple, it would mention it, wouldn’t it? But it doesn’t, so it must not have been in Jerusalem when it was written. This means that the ark was removed before 587 BCE.

And off to Ethiopia, where the Queen of Sheba’s son took it. But of course it’s not there. So, throughout so far Parfitt has presupposed the existence of the ark and its survival to the present. These two presuppositions aren’t based on any facts- and yet they are presented as such. Egypt’s next because, wonder of wonders, Indiana Jones figures into Parfitt’s historical reconstruction!!!!! Now that’s astonishing. A movie brought forth as evidence.

[Talking heads include some guy who was a scroll expert I've never heard of.]

Segment Five: The segment opens in Cairo on the Nile. The ark was smuggled out of Judah before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587. So where did it go? Perhaps to Egypt. Indeed, if you believe Indy, it’s buried in a lost city (Tannis) in Egypt. But if the Egyptians had taken it they would have noted it in their records, Parfitt insists.

[Ok- who really would be so stupid as to take as fact the Indiana Jones story anyway that it has to be ruled out before Parfitt can move forward?]

So maybe the Jews took it to Elephantine. Alas, of course, no. In fact, not only was the ark not removed there but the colony wasn’t really all that interested in worshiping Yahweh alone. Their temple there was dedicated to many gods.

But now, so near to Lemba territory, he was reminded of his previous work on lost Jews and drawn to consider a new solution to the problem of the absent ark.

To sum up the first hour. We know where the ark ISN’T. It isn’t in Jerusalem or Europe or Ethiopia or Elephantine or Qumran. I suppose we must assume that it still exists or looking for it would be a complete and utter waste of time.

Segment Six: All the main theories have led him nowhere and he didn’t believe the ark had been destroyed. So where is it? Its’ time to follow his own theory. The Lemba were related to the Jews as shown by DNA so obviously there’s a link, right? And who knows this better than the amateur Yemenite historian shopkeep interviewed by Parfitt in support of his theory?

But where did the ark go when it left Jerusalem? Perhaps to Mount Nebo? Nah, the Franciscans don’t think it’s there in spite of 2 Maccabees suggestion that Jeremiah took it there.

So we’re back to the Lemba whose ancestors took it from Jerusalem to Petra to Yemen to the Lemba lands. If only Hansel and Gretel had left a trail of breadcrumbs we should be able to track down the route more accurately. Still, there’s a thread running through the legends. Jews lived in South Arabia and what would have hindered them from taking the ark which Jeremiah had hidden on Nebo with them when they turned to the south?

[The further we get into Parfitt's theories, the fewer talking heads from academia. In this segment- there were none.]

Segment Seven: Once upon a time Jews may have possibly lived further east from Yemen. And once upon a time there may have been a dam that burst and when it did agriculture would end at that locale and the Jews who lived there would have had to leave. And so they did. To Africa. Where they took the ark and became the ancestors of the Lemba (who live in South Africa and Zimbabwe). The Lemba worship Yahweh. Well what further evidence do we need? The Lemba are Jews and they must therefore have the ark somewhere with them. They don’t eat pork, they practice circumcision, and they sacrifice animals with a special knife! That pretty much proves it. Besides Judaism, what else ‘traveled with them from Jerusalem’ Parfitt wonders as the segment concludes.

If my tone at this point seems mocking and sarcastic, it is. This is simply absurd. It’s baseless theory piled up on more baseless theory all based upon unproven fact. I’m a bit annoyed at myself, to be blunt, for investing an hour and a half watching this nonsense when I could have been watching Big Brother. But with only 30 minutes left I’m not about to bail out now.

[Talking heads? What talking heads?]

Segment Eight: Lemba DNA proves their Jewishness and so does their music. Well that has to settle it doesn’t it? They have to have the ark because they have Priestly DNA and Jewish music! Furthermore, they have a simple wooden drum and that’s the real deal! That’s the real ark! When they played their magic drum their enemies were rendered immobilized. The connection between this drum and the ark is so obvious that it cannot be missed. So From Jerusalem to Yemen to South Africa and the Lemba- the trail is quite obvious: the ark (magic drum) is in their possession. In a museum in Zimbabwe. Alas- he can’t get back to Zimbabwe to get to the museum so a film crew from there will film for them the magic drum. Will we see the loast ark of the covenant or just a damaged drum? We will soon see, in the final segment.

Segment Nine and Final Observations: Radio carbon dating dates the drum to 600 years old. So this new one is a copy of the old one. Clearly it isn’t the original ark of the covenant. Maybe the original was brought from Yemen but more than likely it was made and remade numerous times over history.

Or, in other words, it’s a copy of a copy of a copy of a drum. It’s a cheap knock off. So we haven’t found the ark. We’ve found a putative copy of something Parfitt alone of all the inhabitants of the earth thinks looks like the ark of the covenant. Even Shimon Gibson sees no connection between the drum and the ark of the covenant.

In sum- the whole theory of Parfitt is rubbish. And annoying rubbish at that.