Ark of Covenant Info Graphic wrong pole orientation
Has anyone noticed this graphic is wrong? Look at the Poles they are in the wrong direction....Just sayin.
a
Comments
-
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.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Thank you for the insight. When reflecting on the passage, I notice also that the guidance from the Lord was to place the rings on the feet of the ark and never be removed. This, of course still doesn't help us with the orientation textually. I'm still looking for the passage referencing the protruding through the curtain. Thankfully we have Logos to help!
They shall make an ark of acacia wood. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height. 11 You shall overlay it with pure gold, inside and outside shall you overlay it, and you shall make on it a molding of gold around it. 12 You shall cast four rings of gold for it and put them on its four feet, two rings on the one side of it, and two rings on the other side of it. 13 You shall make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. 14 And you shall put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry the ark by them. 15 The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it. 16 And you shall put into the ark the testimony that I shall give you.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ex 25:10–16). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
0 -
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.)
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
Dan Langston said:
Thank you for the insight. When reflecting on the passage, I notice also that the guidance from the Lord was to place the rings on the feet of the ark and never be removed. This, of course still doesn't help us with the orientation textually. I'm still looking for the passage referencing the protruding through the curtain. Thankfully we have Logos to help!
They shall make an ark of acacia wood. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height. 11 You shall overlay it with pure gold, inside and outside shall you overlay it, and you shall make on it a molding of gold around it. 12 You shall cast four rings of gold for it and put them on its four feet, two rings on the one side of it, and two rings on the other side of it. 13 You shall make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. 14 And you shall put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry the ark by them. 15 The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it. 16 And you shall put into the ark the testimony that I shall give you.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ex 25:10–16). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
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.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
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.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
6 The priests then brought the ark of the LORD’s covenant to its place in the inner sanctuary of the temple, the Most Holy Place, and put it beneath the wings of the cherubim. 7 The cherubim spread their wings over the place of the ark and overshadowed the ark and its carrying poles. 8 These poles were so long that their ends could be seen from the Holy Place in front of the inner sanctuary, but not from outside the Holy Place; and they are still there today.
The Holy Bible: New International Version, electronic ed., 1 Ki 8:6–8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996).
This shows that the poles extended through the curtain from the Most Holy Place into the Holy Place - but still doesn't answer question of orientation.
Graham
EDIT:
Although deVries argues that this "makes it clear" that the poles were through the long side of the ark.
“Then the priests brought up the ark to its place”: according to the hieros logos, the elders had brought the ark to the temple precincts (cf. 2 Sam 6:2–17), but then the priests carried it to the place prepared for it within the adytum, just beneath the wings of the cherubim (more and more it was assumed that only sacral persons like the Levites were entitled to carry the ark, cf, Josh 3). “The staves extended”: in P’s blueprint, staves were permanently affixed to the ark (Exod 25:12–15), but this passage makes it clear that these were affixed to the long side of the ark and extended through the curtain in front of the adytum so that their ends could be seen from the “holy place” (= the nave, הקדש) before it.
Simon J. DeVries, Word Biblical Commentary : 1 Kings (Second Edition), 286 p.; Word Biblical Comm, 124 (Dallas: Word, Inc).
House is less convinced that they were projecting at all!
It is not easy to grasp just how the ark’s carrying poles were visible in the sanctuary. Montgomery and Gehman suggest that perhaps the poles could have been seen “projecting right and left by one standing near the narrow door of the sanctuary, but not from a greater distance.” Maybe “the doors of the Most Holy Place were kept open so that a worshipper looking in could see the ends of the poles.”80 Whatever the case, the author finds it necessary to stress that the poles are “still there today.” As the introduction to this commentary discusses, this reference is the author’s way of stressing the text’s accuracy.
Paul R. House, vol. 8, 1, 2 Kings, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary, 139 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001).
0 -
Perhaps this story might give us insight as to how the ark was oriented. The question might be, did they take the polls out when they put it on the cart? Because if they poles were horizontally (according to the logos graphic) oriented when they placed it on the cart, I don't see how it could have fallen off. In such case, the ark was carried sideways throughout the whole history of Israel. It cannot have been oriented either way in terms of how the poles were placed through the rings as the text tells us they were never to be removed.
And they carried the ark of God on a new cart and brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. And Uzzah and Ahio,1 the sons of Abinadab, were driving the new cart,with the ark of God, and Ahio went before the ark.
Uzzah and the Ark
5 And David and all the house of Israel were making merry before the LORD, with songs3 and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals. 6 And when they came to the threshing floor of aNacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. 7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (2 Sa 6:3–7). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.0 -
Graham Criddle said:
6 The priests then brought the ark of the LORD’s covenant to its place in the inner sanctuary of the temple, the Most Holy Place, and put it beneath the wings of the cherubim. 7 The cherubim spread their wings over the place of the ark and overshadowed the ark and its carrying poles. 8 These poles were so long that their ends could be seen from the Holy Place in front of the inner sanctuary, but not from outside the Holy Place; and they are still there today.
The Holy Bible: New International Version, electronic ed., 1 Ki 8:6–8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996).
This shows that the poles extended through the curtain from the Most Holy Place into the Holy Place - but still doesn't answer question of orientation.
Graham
Good catch Graham. This rather settles the matter since the cherubim were oriented toward the center covering the seat of the diety. The poles therefore must have been oriented as illustrated. The dimensions of the debir would indicate, however, that there should most likely have been suffient room for the poles to fit entirely within the Holy of Holies.
The interior tripartite division created three separate V 6, p 356 units, each 20 cubits in width. Taken together these units measured 70 cubits long, and 6 cubits separated the first two units and probably also the second from the third. The height of the central part is given as 30 cubits; the innermost part is 20 cubits high, with the difference in height not accounted for in the biblical sources; and the outer section may have also been 30 cubits high, or it may have been atop a platform ascended by stairs (so Ezek 40:49). The biblical information is inconclusive for all three dimensions; but a combined interior space for the V 6, p 357 three parts of about 1451/2 feet long and 35 feet wide, and 52 feet high in its central part, can be calculated using 20.9 inches as the size of the cubit, more specifically the royal cubit, which was probably the intended unit of linear measure in the biblical temple texts. The 20-cubit width, which seems to represent the largest distance that could be spanned without interior columnation, appears to be a realistic figure (Paul and Dever 1973: 78). The Temple was as large as it could be according to the architectural conventions of its day.Freedman, David Noel. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, s.v. Temple, Jerusalem, Charlotte Meyers. New York: Doubleday, 1996.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
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:
.0 -
Maybe they had to walk like Egyptians.
macOS (Logos Pro - Beta) | Android 13 (Logos Stable)
0 -
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.
0 -
Ted Weis said:
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.
It would tend to make it rather tippy, would it not? Of course, the question isn't so much regarding which is easier to carry as regarding which represents more accurately what is described.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
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.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
George Somsel said:
Of course, the question isn't so much regarding which is easier to carry as regarding which represents more accurately what is described.
I think in most of our minds, the most accurate picture is found here:
MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
0 -
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.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
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.
Sorry, I wasn't being serious. I should have included this: [;)]
George Somsel said: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.
Interesting point.
MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
0 -
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]
0 -
Denise Barnhart said:
The tippiness of the Logos version would explain why someone got killed trying to stop it from tipping over.
We need to be careful of how much we assume from our own culture about carrying things and adhere perhaps more closely to what the text actually says.
It is difficult to reconcil the Temple Institute illustration (and for that matter the Inidana Jones one) with the text regarding attaching the rings to the feet.
We also need to be careful about what we consider to be "sides", given it was not a cube of equal proportions.
Given the proportions, many cultures would not say it had four sides or that the poles could have been attached to any two. Many cultures would say that because of the proportions it had TWO sides and TWO ends. This concept is more easily reconciled with a text which says two rings on one side and two on the other. Most people would say a car or bus has only two sides for example.If we assume that in the days of the story that country was not flat and that the roads were far from even, then it is more easy to envisage an ox stumbling trying to negotiate an awkward section of rock with a heavy cart. If this were the case then a load could easily be at risk of tipping no matter what the orientation of the poles.
0 -
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.]
Blessings,
FloydPastor-Patrick.blogspot.com
0 -
Floyd Johnson said:
But Google is always right - and it has a different set of pictures when one searches images for "Ark of the Covenant" ...
Actually, Google is always LEFT. It supports "the Annointed One." [H]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
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.
0 -
@ Todd,
Indy, why is the floor moving. Oh great, asps, I hate asps.
mm.
0 -
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.
0 -
Certainly, this has been one of the weightiest theological issues on these forums.
Next up: those dancing angels on the head of a pin - which way is the pin oriented?
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
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? :-)
0
