Ark of Covenant Info Graphic wrong pole orientation

Dan Langston said:

Has anyone noticed this graphic is wrong? LOOK AT THE POLES.  THEY ARE IN THE WRONG DIRECTION....JUST SAYIN.

 

I was tempted to make a joke about their confusing the north pole with the south pole, but I see your point.  Conventionally the ark has been pictured as having the poles parallel the long sides.  It should be noted, however, that the text simply speaks of the poles as being עַל־צַלְעוֹ "on the side" of the ark without specifying which side.  The illustration certainly is in conflict with the traditional understanding, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong.  I would need to investigate this further.  To this point I have really had other matters on my mind.  In defence of the illustration given it might be noted that the poles were said (if I recall correctly) to have portruded through the curtain which might indicate that the illustration is correct.

Dan Langston said:

Has anyone noticed this graphic is wrong?

Yes, I had noticed, but I wouldn't go so far as to declare with certainty that they're "wrong". They're obviously not alone. This is from the Temple Institute's website:

(The Temple Institute in Jerusalem is a group who wants to build the 3rd Temple now, but they do spend an awful lot of time studying and reconstructing every detail of the Temple, and they're extremely serious about getting it right, so if they portray the Ark like this, I dare say they have some pretty strong reasons for it. Perhaps Jewish and Christian traditions differ? Would be interesting to check the Talmud once we get it.)

George Somsel said:

I don't see it offhand though that doesn't necessarily mean that I didn't read it somewhere (perhaps not in the OT).  It is interesting to note that it wasn't really that very large -- only two cubits which would make it 3.44 ft according to the Palestinian cubit as given by the old trusty "Weights and Measures" in L3.

The ark itself was placed in the debir of the temple under the cherubs, whose wings formed a canopy over it. It is not clear how the structure was planned or oriented so as to make it possible to see them (see K. Galling, "Das Allerheiligste," JPOS 12 [1932], 43 ff.). It must mean that the ark was hidden behind the curtain (3:14) but the poles stuck out on both sides. The cherubs must have covered everything from the top because their wings extended from wall to wall (3:11–13). The contents of the ark were the tables of the torah, always closely associated with the ark of the covenant (cf. Deut 10:2, 5). The Chronicler followed Kings closely here, and Kings was the work of the Deuteronomist. Later tradition suggested that the ark also contained a pot of manna and Aaron’s rod (Heb 9:4), probably on the basis of Exod 16:32–34, which does not say that it was put into the ark but that it was kept before the testimony (ʿēdūt). Cf. Josephus Antiquities III.vi.5. For the Rabbinic tradition see H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud u. Midrash, III, 1926, pp. 737–40.

Myers, Jacob M. II Chronicles : Introduction, Translation and Notes, 2 Chron 5.2-14, p 28. New Haven; London: Yale University, 1965.

Even here it isn't clear.

Here is the photo from Logos' Biblical Places for Arad.  In Arad, we find an Israelite Temple (10th to 7th cent. B.C.E), and this photo is of the Holy of Holies:

.

When you compare the Temple Institute illustration with the Logos illustration, I would venture to say that it would be more difficult to transport the Logos version because all the weight is above the poles, while the Temple Institute version has more the weight below the poles.

The tippiness of the Logos version would explain why someone got killed trying to stop it from tipping over. Clearly Logos has it right and another reason to buy Logos.  Also, the wings of the cherubim were so big, they were foldable in order to get thru doors.

Todd Phillips said:

I think in most of our minds, the most accurate picture is found here:

It may be true that "in our minds" this is the most accurate since that is what has been presented to us since we last wore diapers, but that doesn't mean that it IS MORE ACCURATE.  The space between the cherubim was considered to be the seat of YHWH.  I seriously doubt that they would have considered him to be facing the side wall which is what would be the case if the poles were to extend through the curtains of the debir.  Perception or conventional wisdom is not always correct.

Denise Barnhart said:

The tippiness of the Logos version would explain why someone got killed trying to stop it from tipping over.

I thought you were serious until I got to the folding cherubim wings [:D]

But Google is always right - and it has a different set of pictures when one searches images for "Ark of the Covenant" ... 

[This too is intended to be bit humorous - I have enjoyed following this dicussion.] 

Looking at Exodus 25:17-21 it states that the Mercy Seat is of the same proportions as the Ark itself (2.5 cubits long by 1.5 cubits wide).  It goes on to state that the angels shall be placed at the ends (H7098 qatsah) of the Mercy Seat with wings extended to cover it.  Ends refer to the shortest sides of a rectangle; therefore, it follows that the longer sides are called sides.  We can safely assume that this naming of sides and ends would follow through to any reference to the Ark itself.  That would then place the rings on the long sides not the ends.

In addition, the word for feet (H6471 pa am or pa amah) is also translated corner means a stroke which is a vertical line and would thus seem to be better translated as corner (referring to the whole edge from top to bottom where the sides meet the ends).  This explains the Temple version of the Ark without feet.  

As to the actual placement of the poles, it is possible that the rings are attached to the long sides, but extend over the the corners (edge) so that they protrude past the long sides so that the poles, when inserted into the rings, are actually parallel to the ends (short sides).  Think about attaching rings to a side of the Ark; the most practical way is to have a flange attached to the ring to anchor it using three points in the most secure manner.  This would allow the whole ring to extend beyond the corner (edge) so that a pole could be inserted.

The best argument for this placement of the poles though comes from a look at the Mercy Seat itself.  In ancient times, it was not unusual for a monarch to have servants or guards next to his throne.  The angels here on the Mercy Seat performed that function.  It follows that they were placed at the side of the LORD and not in front and behind him as this would both block his view and not allow anyone to approach him.  We know that the High Priest could approach him there for the LORD himself states that "I will meet you there."  Now if the angels are on the ends and the LORD is facing one of the long sides with his back to the other long side, it would be outrageous and disrespectful to carry the Ark with the LORD facing sideways which would be the case if the poles were parallel to the long sides.  What king would go into battle, and we know that the Ark had been taken into battle before, facing sideways where he could not see and assess the enemy in battle?  

The only question unanswered is the exact placement of the rings on the sides; at the bottom, top or somewhere in between.  Based on previous comments that referred to the tipping of the Ark and the ill-fated attempt by Uzzah to steady it (2 Samuel 6), people have attempted to say that the Ark was placed on the ox cart with the short sides facing front and back which makes it more tip worthy.  This postulation is most likely based on an unstated assumption that poles run parallel to the long sides.  This argument ignores that fact that tipping does not occur only in one direction.  I believe that the the Ark was loaded with the long sides facing front and back for the reasons stated above.  This then would make it more likely that when the ox stumbled causing a forward momentum change, it caused to Ark to begin to tip forward.  It's similar to when you're riding in a car and the brakes are applied suddenly; you find yourself thrust forward.

In summary, first the Ark did not have feet, but that the word so translated refers to its corners/edges.  Second, it had rings on the long side protruding over the edge so that the poles were parallel to the short sides (ends).  Third, the placement of the angels help us place the LORD as facing one of the long sides.  

I am coming into this conversation a little late, Having recently ordered and received a miniature replica of the Ark of the Covenant from an online supplier, I was surprised to see that the 'staves' ( poles) traverse the ends of miniature replica instead of the sides. There are some very valid points posted on the stave's orientation, and I would like to Thank everyone for their thoughts on the matter. 

JRS said:

Next up: those dancing angels on the head of a pin - which way is the pin oriented?

You're asking, What's the point?  :-)