Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Dietrich (2007: 250–252).
- 2.
The word šittîm “acacia” is a loan from Egyptian. See Muchiki (1999: 256). There are a number of species of acacia that grow in Egypt, the Sinai peninsula, the Judean desert, and the Negev.
- 3.
The lid also is translated “mercy seat,” based on an etymological association. However, the word kappōreth simply means “covering.”
- 4.
On the Egyptian origin of this creature, see already Albright (1938) and now Mettinger (1999). Attestations of the Assyrian cognate d kurību do not permit a precise or a consistent description of the creature. Thus, some appear to have animal heads while others have human heads. Nevertheless, the d kurību commonly are described as fashioned images that either stand at entrances to portals or face each other. The use of the cuneiform DINGIR sign marks them as divine. See CAD K, 559, s.v. kurību. Even in the Bible, there is some variation concerning this creature. Thus, the kerubîm on the Ark have two wings (Exod 25:20, 37:9), but four wings in Ezekiel’s vision (Ezek 1:6). The closest parallels are the sarcophagus of Ahiram, king of Byblos, and an ivory found at Megiddo. Both objects are highly Egyptianized and depict a king seated on a kerubîm-flanked throne. The latter item also features a winged solar disk and lotus offering. See Kyrieleis (1969: 41–81). Many objects found at Megiddo dating to this period evince Egyptian influence, if not also a presence. See Novacek (2011). On other possible parallels, including a stone throne from Lebanon and a divine statue from Cyprus, see Zwickel (1999: 101–105). On archaeological evidence for the Israelite cult, see Zwickel (1994).
- 5.
On two occasions oxen pulled the Ark on a “newly constructed wagon” (1 Sam 6:7, 2 Sam 6:3), though this was not ordinary practice.
- 6.
Moreover, the priests were forbidden from looking at the kappōreth “lid.” Hence, it was veiled. Only the high priest could look at the kappōreth on Yom Kippur, provided he has undertaken a special rite and has changed his garments (Lev 16:4). On the veil and the lid, see Bordreuil (2006).
- 7.
According to Josephus, Jewish Wars 5.219, the innermost sanctum was empty.
- 8.
In Exod 17:15, Moses built an altar to Yahweh after his battle against the Amalekites and named it יהוָ֥ה נסִּֽי “Yahweh is my banner.” The identification of Yahweh with a banner is reminiscent of the Egyptian hieroglyphic representation of n t r “god” with a banner (i.e.,
). - 9.
1 Chron 13:3 suggests that people did not seek oracles from the Ark during Saul’s reign.
- 10.
The LXX of 1 Sam 14:18 reads “ephod.” The instrument of divination in 2 Samuel is less clear, but Van der Toorn and Houtman (1994) argue that “ephod” here stands for “Ark” and that the Ark functioned for divination. They also opine that there were multiple Arks in the region whose existence was blurred by later Deuteronomist editing. If the authors are correct in arguing that the Ark that David brought to Jerusalem was not a national symbol, but a Saulide cult object, then perhaps we should look to the tribe of Benjamin as the original locus for the object.
- 11.
- 12.
The relief, which is on display in the British Museum, was photographed by the author.
- 13.
The image of the ʿuṭfa appears in Musil (1928: 573). The ʿuṭfa, maḥmal, abu-dhûr, markab, and qubba have been treated rather loosely as a collective by earlier biblicists who proposed them as parallels to the Ark (e.g., Morgenstern 1942; de Vaux 1965: 9, 296–297), and since that time they have been adopted somewhat uncritically into the scholarly literature. Nevertheless, the items are rather distinct in appearance and function, and each has its own history. The ʿuṭfa generally refers to the hooded camel saddle used by married women of Sudan, Arabia, Tripoli, etc. It cannot be traced to pre-Islamic times. See Robinson (1931b). Tradition places the origin of the maḥmal in Mamluk Cairo in the thirteenth century CE. See Robinson (1931a). The merkab and abu-dhûr appear to be synonyms for the ostrich-feather litter that sits upon camels. They are recorded in premodern Bedouin society, but not pre-Islamic society. See Musil (1928: 571–574). The Egyptian merkab cannot be dated before the eleventh century CE, when the Persian traveler Nasir-i Khusrau described its use in conjunction with a Nile inundation ceremony, see Sanders (1994: 103). Only the qubba dates to pre-Islamic times, as it is represented on the temple of Bel at Palmyra (first century CE). Nevertheless, all of these litters are tent-like structures, and thus, they are more fruitfully compared to the tabernacle. See Homan (2002: 90–94). Homan does not discuss the abu-dhur. The Hebrew cognate qubbāh in Num 25:8 also refers to a tent.
- 14.
Curiously, Homan (2002: 113) does not discuss a possible parallel between the Ark and the Egyptian bark, but instead he notes that Ramesses’ golden throne appears in the Qadesh record as “flanked by falcon wings, just as the Ark is flanked by winged cherubim.” Moreover, Homan (2002: 145–147) notes that the construction of the tabernacle’s frame employs the term qerāšîm “(thin) boards,” a word of nautical importance that elsewhere (i.e., Ezek 27:6) refers to the main cabin on a boat. See also Kitchen (1993: 119–129).
- 15.
- 16.
Photograph of sacred barks at Medinet Habu by the author.
- 17.
- 18.
The veiled bark of Amun here comes from a relief at Karnak, photographed by the author.
- 19.
The photograph of the bark transporting the catafalque in the tomb of Userhat (TT 56) was taken by the author.
- 20.
See Göttlicher (1992: 13–75), who divides the cultic barks into four basic types: those belonging to districts, states, gods, or of non-locale or unspecified nature, with each category containing many variations. Most of the barks are given epithet-like names, though the general term for bark appears to have been wi 3, perhaps related to the verb wi 3 “to be separated, secluded, segregated.” See WÄS 1982: 272.
- 21.
Photographs by the author.
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
A copy of the letter also was placed at the feet of the Hittite god Teshub. On the correspondence between these kings see Edel (1994: 1/16–29, 2/27–29). For the Egyptian texts of the treaty, see Kitchen (1971: 225–232); Edel (1983: 135–153). Note that Beckman (1996: 125) treats the god in the broken portion of the letter as the Hittite storm god.
- 25.
See already Herrmann (1908). The platforms on which Arks were placed also sometimes stored texts. Thus, spell 64 of the Book of Going Forth by Day (lines 25–26) concludes by noting that the spell was discovered by a master-worker in a plinth belonging to the god of the Hennu-bark (i.e., Sokar or Horus). P. London BM EA 10477 (P. Nu), Tb 064 Kf (line 25), P. Cairo CG 51189 (P. Juya), Tb 064 (line 284). Moreover, in the 18th Dynasty the term s.t wr.t “great seat,” which usually referred to the throne of a king or a god, came to be used for the pedestal on which one rested a divine bark or the bark shrine itself. Eventually, it became a metonym for the temple. See McClain (2007: 88–89). Herrmann (1908: 299–300) also draws attention to the parallel. In 1 Samuel 10:25, Samuel also places a scroll containing the duties of kingship before the Ark.
- 26.
The Late Period exemplar shown here is courtesy of the British Museum (E9742).
- 27.
Teeter (2011: 57) remarks: “Festivals also illustrated how little separation there was between the concepts of funerary and nonfunerary practices. For example, festivals of Osiris, the god of the afterlife, were celebrated in the Karnak Temple and recorded in detail at the Temple of Hathor at Dendara, structures that are not usually associated with mortuary cults.”
- 28.
The solar god rode one boat (mʿn d .t) during the day and another (i.e., mskt.t) at night. On the orientation of these boats, see Thomas (1956: 56–79).
- 29.
Of course, the Israelites dispensed with the Egyptian practice of placing an image of the God’s head on the prow and stern.
- 30.
The term for Noah’s Ark is tēbāh (Gen 6:14). It is also used for the small chest into which the infant Moses was floated to safety (Exod 2:3, 2:5). The word tēbāh is a loan from the Egyptian d b 3(t) “naos, casket, sockel for a throne.” Interestingly, like the Hebrew word kissēʾ “throne,” the Israelites did not use the term tēbāh for the Ark of the Covenant, even though it was available to them. It is plausible that the Israelites used the term ʾarōn instead of tēbāh (or kissēʾ “throne”), because it distinguished the object from a boat while retaining its chthonic associations. On the Hebrew and Egyptian lexemes, see HALOT, p. 1678, s.v. תֵּבָה; WÄS 5: 555–562, and Hannig (1995: 1003), s.v. d b 3(t). The meaning “coffin” is spelled d b 3(t). On the word as a loan into Hebrew, see Muchiki (1999: 258). On the LXX’s rendering of both ʾarōn and tēbāh as κιβωτός, see Loewe (2001).
- 31.
The word ʾarōn appears in 2 Kgs 12:9–16 (=2 Chron 24:8–12), where it is often translated “(money) chest.” However, the passage carefully states that the priest Jehoida took an ʾarōn and bored a hole into its lid (i.e., delet, lit. door). This clarifies that the coffin was repurposed as a coffer. The Akkadian cognate arānu similarly means coffin and cashbox, CAD A 2, p. 231, s.v. arānu. Note also that the Phoenician cognate ʾarōn appears on a number of royal memorial inscriptions in reference to heavily Egyptianized Phoenician sarcophagi. See KAI, nos. 1, 9, 13, 13, 29. If the wood used to build the Ark (i.e., šittîm “acacia”) is to be identified with spina aegyptiaca, then it is noteworthy that the Egyptians also used it to construct coffins.
- 32.
Gen 50:2 states that Joseph ordered his servants and physicians to do the embalming, but they are not identified as Egyptians.
- 33.
See, for example, Sarna (1989: 348), who asks “Why does the procession stop at just this place?,” and suggests that the region might have had Egyptian connections.
- 34.
Cf. the mourning over the men whom Yahweh slew for looking into the Ark in 1 Sam 6:18–19. On the peculiarities of this passage and proposed connection to Ark narratives, see Tur-Sinai (1951: 275–286).
- 35.
When Jacob died, the narrator noted that the Egyptians bewailed him for 70 days (Gen 50:3). Herodotus relates that the body was placed in niter for 70 days (Histories 2.86). Diodorus Siculus states that the preparation of the body took 30 days and the wailing another 72 days (Histories 1.91). However, Job and his friends mourn for 7 days (Job 2:13). Cf. 1 Chron 10:12.
- 36.
Aranov (1977) supplies a wealth of comparative data on the subject, though his approach is rather Frazerian in orientation. For the cultic use of the threshing floor in Mesopotamia, see Jacobsen (1975: 65–97). At Ugarit, threshing floors also were tied to mourning and fertility rites and used as sites for divination (CAT 1.141–145, 1.155) and summoning the dead (CAT 1.20–22). Similar cultic activity took place in the Aegean world (Homeric Hymn to Demeter, 185–189). The threshing floor shared a number of these associations in ancient Israel as well. Thus, Gideon sought an oracle by means of divination at a threshing floor (Judg 6:11–20). Prophecy and royal judgment also took place there (1 Kgs 22:10–11), the latter, even during the period of the Sanhedrin (Aranov 1977: 161–176). The association of the threshing floor with fertility is suggested also in the book of Ruth, in which Ruth and Boaz have sex at a threshing floor (Ruth 3). See also Hos 9:1. That some sexual activity took place in or near the Israelite temple is clear by legal and prophetic pronouncements against such acts (see, e.g., Deut 23:18–19, Hos 4:14, 1 Kgs 14:24, 15:12, 22:38–47, 2 Kgs 23:7, Jer 2:20, 5:7, Ezek 16:31, Mic 1:7). See also Littauer et al. (1990: 15–23).
- 37.
On the complex history of Osiris and the use of corn mummies, see Griffiths (1980).
- 38.
Though neither Osiris nor the deceased whom he judged ever returned to the land of the living. Instead, they were resurrected in the afterlife.
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
The verb
means “beating, threshing.” See Egberts (1995) for a comprehensive study of this ritual. Though details mainly come from temples of the Graeco-Roman period, the original contexts for the ritual belong to Theban festival processions for Osiris in the Ramesside period, which themselves derive in part from festivals at Memphis (Egberts 1995: 182–183). - 43.
Including the Sokar festival, Osiris Mystery, Min festival, festival of Behdet, Opet festival, and perhaps also the festival of the first month of summer. See Egberts (1995: 412).
- 44.
The ritual also involved the royal consecration of four mr.t-chests, reliquaries that contained four differently colored linen bandages for Osiris’ mummy. Some texts appear to refer to garments worn by a divine statue, but their use as bandages for the mummification of Osiris is their primary function. The boxes were consecrated by dragging them and beating them with scepters, as one would do to grain. Since the mr.t-chests represented the cardinal points, the rite enacted the king’s dominion over Egypt and his leading of Egypt to the gods. Another rite involved the carrying of two sticks, one topped with a serpent’s head. According to one text, each stick represented one half of a severed worm. This ritual was interpreted as driving out the enemy, like a worm, which is both a grain eater and corpse eater. The ritual of the mr.t-chests preceded that of the driving of the calves, the former rite standing for the mummification of Osiris and the latter for the protection of his tomb after burial. During the Osiris Mystery, these rites were performed at the necropolis over an underground structure in which Osiris effigies were interred (Egberts 1995: 185, 388, 438–439).
- 45.
On rituals for assembling Osiris’ body, see Egberts (1995: 200).
- 46.
In Egyptian mythology and ritual, the living king Horus (in the form of pharaoh) performs the mourning rites for his father and deceased king Osiris. Interestingly, in Gen 50:10–11, Joseph mourns for his father, the deceased patriarch Jacob.
- 47.
See Ulmer (2009: 107–142), for the texts paraphrased here (i.e., Exod. Rab. 20:19, Deut. Rab. 11:7, b. Soṭah 13a, Mek. de Rabbi Ishmael, Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 11, Vayehi Beshallaḥ) and additional evidence.
- 48.
There is some discrepancy concerning when Joseph’s body was taken from Egypt. Exod 13:19 states that Moses took the bones of Joseph with him. Jub 46:9 claims that the Israelites took all the bones of Jacob’s sons from Egypt, except those of Joseph. Josephus, Antiquities, 2.195–200, places the retrieval of Joseph’s bones at a much later time.
- 49.
That Moses was learned in Egyptian magic appears also in Acts 7:22, Pliny, Mos. 1.6, 1.21, 1.24.
- 50.
Here the spring barley harvest is meant, since Josh 5:10 mentions the celebration of the passover.
- 51.
The Hebrew word for grain is dāgān. It appears in conjunction with the threshing floor in Num 18:27. The prophet Hosea too punfully identifies Dagon with the threshing floor (Hos 9:1). On Dagon, see Singer (1992: 431–450); Healey (1999: 216–219); and Felie (2003: 279–280). On the identification of Dagon as a god of storms, see Green (2003: 63–72). However, see Schwemer (2001), for a more exhaustive treatment of weather gods, which does not include Dagon. If Dagon was in any way identified with Osiris, then the story of the dismemberment of Dagon’s statue before the Ark of the Covenant would echo the mythology of Osiris’ dismemberment. However, I have found no evidence for the connection. For the view that the dismemberment represents the brutality of warfare as seen in Ugaritic texts, see Wiggins (1993).
- 52.
See already Roberts (1972: 18–19), who argues that this occurs chiefly through his identification with Enlil and the types of sacrifices offered to him, which are identified as sacrifices for the dead.
- 53.
At Terqa, his temple was called the “temple of the funerary ritual” (Akkadian: bīt-kispi). See Felie (2003: 96). At Mari, he was given the epithet bēl pagrē, i.e., “Lord of the Dead.” See G. Dossin, ARM 10 63:15–16, C. -F. Jean, ARM 2 90; 137: 43–44, J.-R. Kupper, ARM 3 40. Cf. Ezek 43:7. At Ugarit too he received sacrifices to the deceased. See Neiman (1948) and Dussaud (1935).
- 54.
Note also the narrator’s statement in 1 Sam 23:1 that the Philistines were fighting at Qeilah and plundering its threshing floors. This act led David to seek Yahweh’s oracle twice, presumably by way of the Ark, as to whether to battle the Philistines (1 Sam 23:2–4).
- 55.
The word nākōn might also be read as an adjective meaning “prepared, right.” 1 Chron 13:9 reads kîdōn instead of nākōn. Tur-Sinai (1951: 282–285) argues that nākōn and kîdōn refer to “pestilence” and “affliction.”
- 56.
The Ark also was stored in private homes such as that of Abinadab, whose house, which the narrator twice emphasizes, was located on “the hill” (2 Sam 6:3–4), and of Obed-Edom (2 Sam 6:10–11), whose household prospered on account of the Ark.
- 57.
According to Lev 23:40–41, the foliage included “good fruits,” “palm branches,” “boughs of leafy trees,” and “willows of the brook.” This differs slightly in Neh 8:15, which calls for “olive branches,” “branches of wild olive,” “myrtle branches,” “palm branches,” and “branches of thick trees.” The Mishnah clarifies the fruit as a “citron” (Sukkah I iii 8; I iii 12). The Mishnah’s prohibition against using any plants from an Asherah (Sukkah I iii 1–3, 5) implies that at one time some people did obtain foliage from an Asherah, thus again attesting to the festival’s early fertility associations.
- 58.
Note that Neh 8:14 historicizes the festival of Sukkoth as an institution created to remember the Israelite’s departure from Egypt. Nevertheless, as 8:17 clarifies: “… the Israelites had not done so from the days of Joshua son of Nun to that day.” I take this gloss to refer not to the festival itself, but to the erection of booths within the courtyards of the temple (8:16), i.e., an innovation that required historical justification.
- 59.
See the Kaige recension of the LXX for 2 Sam 24:15. Araunah (also called Ornan) was a Jebusite and, thus, an inhabitant of Jebus (i.e., Jerusalem) before David conquered it. Araunah appears to be a Hittite name or title. See Sayce (1921) and Rosén (1955). Wyatt (1985) argues that “the Araunah” (the name contains the definite article in 2 Sam 24:16) was the last Jebusite king (cf. Ezek 16:1).
- 60.
1 Chron 15:27 adds that David was wearing a robe of fine linen as were also the Levites, singers, and Chenaniah, the music master. The passage lists the instruments as including a shofar, trumpets, cymbals, loud harps, and lyres.
- 61.
The event was identified as a fertility rite by Smelik (1992: 52–53), though I disagree with his dating of the narrative to the post-exilic period. On raisin cakes as a fertility food, see also Hos 3:1 and Song 2:5. The biblical writer has inverted the theme of fertility by informing the reader at story’s end that David’s wife Michal died childless (2 Sam 6:23).
- 62.
The passage refers to the month by its Canaanite name Ethanim, rather than Tishri, the name used after the introduction of the Babylonian calendar. 2 Macc 10:6–8 also informs us that the temple’s renovation closely followed the pattern of the Festival of Ingathering.
- 63.
Sukkoth here is referred to simply as “the Festival” (he-ḥāg). See similarly in 1 Kgs 8:65, Ezek 45:23, Neh 8:14, and 2 Chron 7:8. Ezra 3:1–7 links the dedication of the altar with Sukkoth. On Sukkoth, see Haran 1985: 298–300. A similar annual harvest festival existed at Shiloh in the period of the Judges (see Judg 21:19–23). Perhaps this explains the Ark’s trip to Shiloh in 1 Sam 3:1–31. The Mishnah elucidates the passage in Judges by connecting it to courtship rites: “And the daughters of Jerusalem went forth in the vineyards. And what did they say? ‘Young man, lift up your eyes and see who you would choose for yourself (as a wife). Set not your eyes on beauty, but set your eyes on family” (Taanith iv 8). Note also the mention in Judg 9:27 of a vintage feast at Shechem before Yahweh was worshiped there. See the insightful query and response concerning celebration during Sukkoth found in Sukkah iv 4: “How was the rite of the palm branch fulfilled [on the Sabbath]? If the first festival day of the Feast fell on a Sabbath, they brought their palm branches to the Temple Mount and their ministers took them and set them in order on the roof of the portico, but the elders set theirs in a [special] chamber. The people were taught to say, ‘Whoever gets my palm branch, let it be his as a gift.’ The next day they came early and the ministers threw the palm branches down before them and the people snatched at them and beat each other.” The beatings mentioned here clearly mimic the act of threshing. Compare, e.g., the similar report of R. Jonathan b. Baroka who noted: “They use to bring palm branches and beat them on the ground at the sides of the Altar, and that day was called, ‘The day of the branch threshing’” (Sukkah iv 6).
- 64.
Moreover, each of the sanctuaries that the Ark visited has chthonic associations and connections to fertility. In 1 Sam 7:1, the men of Kiriath-jearim move the Ark to the house of a man named Aminadab, which is said to be on a hill. The gloss concerning the hilltop suggests that it was an open space, much like those on which threshing floors were situated. On the connection between threshing floors and high places in ancient Israel, see Aranov (1977: 51–52). Note also that we are told that the Ark rested there for 20 years, during which the people “mourned” (i.e., ויִּנָּה֛וּ in 1 Sam 7:2). The verb used here usually appears in reference to mourning for the dead. Though the account of the Ark at the fall of Jericho contains no reference to grain, the circumambulation of the city seven times is suggestive of pilgrimage dances and the round shape of the threshing floor (note the pleonastic etymological connection between Hebrew חגג “Festival” and חוג “circle, vault of heaven”). It is of note that the Mishnah describes the rituals that took place on the seventh day of Sukkoth as including the blowing of the shofar and a sevenfold circumambulation of the altar with willow branches (Sukkah iv 5). Moreover, each of the sanctuaries that housed the Ark in the pre-monarchic period has numinous, chthonic, and fertility associations. At Gilgal, Joshua erected 12 stones to commemorate the Ark’s miraculous crossing of the Jordan River (Josh 4:19–24). Joshua reinstituted the rite of circumcision at Gilgal (Josh 5:2–6), and there Yahweh gave him an oracle (Josh 10:8). Judg 3:19 mentions Gilgal as a place known for its “carved idols” (p ə silîm). Later prophets associate the site with idolatry and temple prostitution (e.g., Hos 4:15, 9:15, 12:11, Amos 4:4, 5:5). The sanctuary site of Shechem is connected to fertility in that it was set up near an oak tree (Gen 12:6–7, Josh 24:26, Judg 9:6). Judg 8:33, 9:44 associates Shechem with Baal-Berith. Moreover, when Joshua renewed the covenant there, he commemorated the occasion by erecting a stone (Josh 24:26). Bokhim (lit. “weepers”) is given an aetiology that connects it to a divine encounter during which the people acknowledged following other gods and wept (Judg 2:1–5). This pericope suggests that mourning rites were performed there. Bethel was the site of a divine encounter with the patriarch Jacob after which he erected a maṣṣēbāh and anointed it with oil (Gen 28:10–19). Hos 12:4 adds that this event was accompanied by weeping. Bethel was also the site of a mourning rite during which the Israelites wept (Judg 20:26, 21:2–4). Though dating from a later period (fourth c. BCE), Papyrus Amherts 63 attests to bovine imagery at Bethel and associates it with a fusion between Yahweh and Horus. See Nims and Steiner (1983: 261–274). At Shiloh, Joshua cast lots before Yahweh in order to divine which lands belonged to which tribes (Josh 18:1). Shiloh also is the site of a harvest festival during which young men selected spouses from among the young women who danced in the vineyards (Judg 21:19–24). The event was precipitated by the aforementioned mourning of the tribe of Benjamin at Bethel. When the Ark stayed at Kiriath-Jearim it was placed on a hilltop (1 Sam 7:1–2). Initially, it was not an Israelite settlement, but rather a Hivite one (Josh 9:7–17), and at one time it was home to the cult of Baal, as its other name Kiriath-Baal attests (Josh 15:9, 15:60, 18:4, 1 Chron 13:6). On Kiriath-Jearim and its relationship to Gibeon, see Blenkinsopp (1969). Gibeon was the seat of an ancient sanctuary called “the great high place” (1 Kgs 3:4). This site too is characterized as numinous. Thus, during the battle at Gibeon, Yahweh halted the motion of the sun (Josh 10:12–13), and Joshua allotted it to the Levites, making it a priestly town (18:25, 21:17). Later God appeared and spoke to Solomon at Gibeon (1 Kgs 3:4, 1 Kgs 9:2, 1 Chron 1:2–7).
- 65.
Barkay (1994) has shown that Egyptian embalming practices were employed by some within Israel well into the Iron Age. See also Zevit (2001: 247, n. 198), who, citing Barkay’s study on embalmment in Israel, observes: “… perhaps some Nilotic mythology accompanied the science, if learned from the Egyptians.”
- 66.
It is not my intention to enter the debate concerning the historicity of the Exodus. The subject has been covered amply by biblical scholars, Egyptologists, and archaeologists and little by way of consensus has emerged (as can be seen by many of the essays in this volume). Some suggest that it was a plural phenomenon that took place in stages over time. Others view it as a single but much smaller event. Some scholars indentify the nascent Israelites with the marauding ʿApiru, though in more recent years, the Shasu have become the comparative group of choice. See Greenberg (1955); Giveon (1974: 267–271); Redford, (1992: 269–280); and Rainey (2008: 51–55). Dating the Exodus has proved even more difficult, though most positivist views place it sometime between the fourteenth and twelfth centuries B.C.E. In my view, while some of the proto-Israelites might have lived in settlement communities in Egypt, such as the House of Joseph, the Levites, and perhaps elements of the Benjaminite and Judahite tribes, and others might have been among the Shasu, the overwhelming archaeological evidence suggests an indigenous Late Bronze Age Canaanite origin for most of the Israelites. In general, I concur with Weinstein (1997: 98), who remarks: “If there was an historical exodus, it probably consisted of a small number of Semites migrating out of Egypt in the late thirteenth or early twelfth century B.C., ultimately settling in southwestern Canaan, where their Egyptian heritage would allow them to melt into the local populace ….”
- 67.
Temples include those at Apheq, Ashdod, Ashqelon, Beth Shean, Gaza, Jaffa, Lachish, Megiddo, and Tell Abu Hawam. Note in particular the remark of Nakhai (2001: 151) that “Egypt dominated LB II Ashdod and Ashod’s sacred site should be considered Egypto-Canaanite.” Over a century ago, the remains of an Egypto-Canaanite temple were discovered north of the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem. The finds, which date to the Ramesside period, included an Egyptian stele dedicated to Osiris. Also discovered in 1975 was a serpent statue. See Wimmer (1990: 1073).
- 68.
A similar process of integration and adaptation in which the foreign elements did not compromise the identity and worship of the local gods obtains in the Iron Age, when Egyptian interests and influence shifted to the Phoenician world, as Giveon (1978: 31) remarks: “In spite of the strong influence of Egyptian culture on the Canaanites in general and Byblos in particular, the fundamental religious concepts of the Egyptians were not copied or even adopted by the peoples of Western Asia: it is only the iconography of the Egyptians which was used as a means of expressing the religious beliefs of the Canaanites. In the process of transfer Egyptian pictorial concepts were changed in varying degrees, the changes being due sometimes to a lack of understanding of their real meaning and sometimes to the need to use similar pictographs to express different ideas.”
- 69.
- 70.
According to Keel (2006: 248), this process began already at the end of the Middle Bronze Age IIB: “The scarabs previously discussed here thus testify to the Middle Bronze Age Canaanites’ fervor and enthusiasm for Egyptian culture in general and for the god of Memphis in particular. The predilection for this god can be explained by trade connections with Memphis and by the fact that many of the Canaanites coming to Egypt during the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Dynasties were craftsmen.” See also the twelfth century B.C.E. ivory plaques from Megiddo inscribed in honor of a Canaanite temple musician named Kurkur, who had been trained at Memphis and was serving the court of Ashqelon (Wimmer 1990: 1091–1093; Lippke 2011). Florian Lippke has informed me by personal communication (April 15, 2013) of a number of additional scarabs and seals found in the southern Levant that feature Ptah iconography, including those from Abu Hawam, Achsib, a good portion from Tell Agul and Akko, Aschkelon, at least 5 from Beth Shean as well as Der Balah, Dotan, Ekron, En Samije, Tell Eschtori, 13 from Tel Fara, 5 from Tel Gamma, 1 from Gath, 1 from Gerisa, 3 from Gezer, and 1 from Tell Hesi. In Jordan there is one from Amman, one from Tell Deir Alla, and one cylinder seal from there as well. See Zecchi (1996) for the spread of the cult of Osiris after the eleventh century B.C.E.
- 71.
- 72.
Keel (2006: 258–259) discusses four scarabs that feature Ptah standing before Re and Osiris in the form of two birds. He argues that the items demonstrate a knowledge of the concepts represented in the Memphite Theology. See Koch (1965), cited by Keel (2006: 261, n. 103). With Schlögl (1980), Keel dates the Memphite Theology to the reign of Ramesses II.
- 73.
- 74.
Interestingly, Exodus 25 portrays Yahweh as a god of craftsman. After giving Moses detailed instructions for building the Ark, he personally selects the craftsmen and fills them with his spirit and wisdom (Exod 35:30–36:7). Note too that the word “firmament” (Heb. rāqiʿa), which God created to support the heavens in Gen 1:6, derives from a root whose basic meaning is to “beat out metal.”
- 75.
Other cults apparently were more receptive to the notion of a god who can die and be resurrected. Such might account for shared aspects of the Levantine cults of Osiris, Baʿal, and ʾAdonis, of which scholars have long been aware. Strange (2004: 350) has argued that the Osiris cult was refracted in or synchronized with the cults of Baʿal and ʾAdonis. Redford (1992: 43–44) similarly argues that the comparative study of Osiris, Baʿal, and ʾAdonis has fallen into disfavor largely because scholars have tried to distance themselves from the earlier methodological pitfalls that beset the works of Sir James Frazer. According to Redford, scholars have erred too much on the side of caution and have “thrown out the baby with the bath water.” For a more recent critical treatment of the topic, see Mettinger (2001). The spread of the cult of Osiris throughout the Mediterranean world is certainly in evidence during the Graeco-Roman period. See, in particular, the host of later myths involving Osiris and/or accounts involving floating chests observed by Plutarch (De Iside et Osiride, 15–16) and others and discussed by Holley (1949: 39–47); Griffiths (1980: 28–34). Of note is the depiction of the cult of Osiris on a frescoe at Pompeii, which shows a temple devoted to Isis. Within the temple is a naos, which is constructed from the disassembled parts of an Osiris coffin. Inside the naos is painted a bark of Osiris. The frescoe shows that the bark of Osiris could be reimagined in other ways outside of Egypt. For an image of the frescoe, see Merkelbach (2001: 505).
- 76.
According to the Hebrew Bible, Aaron’s rod stood near the Ark (Num 17:1), though a tradition found in the New Testament (Heb 9:4) places the rod inside the Ark. Nevertheless, much like the Ark itself, the wonders ascribed to it, including its transformation into a serpent (Exod 7:10) and its blossoming and production of almonds (Num 17:8), convey a sense of chthonic power and fertility. Its transformation into a serpent has parallels in Egyptian magical praxis. See Noegel (1997). The parallels to Egyptian magic and the comparative evidence gathered in this essay suggest that the Levites possessed at least some knowledge of Egyptian religious practices. It long has been observed that several individuals connected to the early Israelite priesthood possessed Egyptian names, including Assir, Hofni, Pinehas, Hor, Merari, and of course Moses. See already Noth (1928: 63–64). Some have opined that the name Aaron too is Egyptian. See Spencer (1992) and Muchiki (1999). If one concedes that the Levites possessed knowledge of Egyptian religion, might it also be that the solar bark’s encounter with the great serpent Apep informs the Israelite conception of the great serpent Leviathan (also called tannîn)? Not only is this creature identified with the Pharaoh (Ezek 29:3, 32:2), but its dismemberment by Yahweh is credited with enabling the Israelites to cross the Reed Sea (Isa 51:9–10). In Exod 7:10, Aaron’s staff becomes a tannîn before devouring the serpent-staffs of the Egyptian magicians. Moreover, Ritner (1993: 165–167) has discussed how Egyptian priests employed rituals to ensure the safe nightly passage of the solar bark. These rites involved paralyzing Apep by severing, burning, or otherwise destroying an effigy of the serpent. No such rite is attested in the Hebrew Bible. However, the many references to the great serpent as an enemy of Yahweh and the role that priests played in maintaining cosmic order through ritual suggest that perhaps we should read more into the etymological connection between the priestly tribe of “Levi” and the “Leviathan” (the etymological connection was first suggested to me by the late Cyrus H. Gordon). As many have pointed out, Ps 74:13–14 refers to the beast as having multiple heads and, thus, more akin to the multi-headed creature ltn in Ugaritic texts (e.g., CAT 1.5 I 1–8) and artistic representations from Arslan Tash and Diyala. Nevertheless, some representations of chaos serpents in Egypt also have multiple heads. See, e.g., the panel in the tomb of Tuthmosis III (KV 34, chamber J, right wall) that depicts the falcon-headed Sokar overpowering a many-headed chaos serpent in a cave during the fifth hour of the Amduat. Moreover, the aforementioned passage in Psalm 74 is followed rather fittingly with chaotic water and solar imagery in vv. 15–16 with: “You broke the springs and the torrents, you dried ever-flowing streams. To you belongs day and also night, you have prepared the light and the sun.” I also note that Isaiah 27 opens by referencing the punishment of Leviathan (v. 1) and concludes with Yahweh threshing his enemies (v. 12). Additional evidence for the Levitical association with serpents appears in Num 21:8–9, in which Moses cures the people of snake bites by fashioning a bronze serpent, and in the later mention that the priests had allowed the item to be venerated until Hezekiah destroyed it (2 Kgs 18:4).
- 77.
In Isa 66:1 Yahweh declares: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth ( ˒ ereṣ) is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be?” If the word ˒ ereṣ here means “underworld,” as it does elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., Job 10:21–22, Ps 139:15, Isa 44:23, Jonah 2:6) and in Ugaritic and Akkadian texts, then the passage also connects the kappōreth “lid/throne” with the heavens and the ʾarōn “Ark/footstool” with the underworld. Since heaven and underworld constitute a more apt merism and a better case of cosmic symmetry than heaven and earth, one naturally might question whether ˒ ereṣ means “underworld” in Gen 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (˒ ereṣ).” That ˒ ereṣ here might mean underworld is suggested later in Gen 7:11, which describes the cosmic collapse in a way that reverses the processes of creation. Thus, Yahweh rains down the reservoir of heavenly water and ushers up the fountains of the deep.
- 78.
See, e.g., 2 Kgs 13:7, Isa 21:10, 27:12, Jer 51:33, Hos 13:3, Amos 1:3, Mic 4:12, Hab 3:12. A full discussion appears in Aranov (1977: 177–181).
- 79.
The processes of innovation and negotiation find an apt parallel in the establishment of temples at Dan and Bethel under Jeroboam I. To decentralize the religious and political authorities in Jerusalem, Jeroboam set up golden calves in the temples and told the people, “Behold O Israel, your gods who brought you up from the land of Egypt” (1 Kgs 12:28). Jeroboam had strong support from Egypt and even lived there for a time (1 Kgs 11:40, 12:2). On the complex relationship between the account of Jeroboam’s calves and Exodus 32, see Knoppers (1995) and Russell (2009: 41–43). Note that 2 Chron 13:8 appears to understand the calves as a war standard and thus mobile like the Ark of the Covenant. As Russell (2009: 27–30) points out, Jeroboam I’s use of bovine imagery might reflect Egyptian, Syrian, or Mesopotamian influence or the renovation of older imagery associated with El to which Yahweh was fused. In my view, the power of icons lies in their ability to communicate on multiple levels to multiple audiences. A bovine image could have served this purpose.
- 80.
The Exodus stories appear to have originated in the northern kingdom of Israel and to have been integrated into Judahite historiographical tradition at a later time (see Hoffman 1989; Naʾaman 2011). The construction of the Ark with acacia suggests that the Ark’s origins were south of the kingdom of Israel.
- 81.
On the theory that the Ark narratives serve as an aetiology for its use in the Jerusalem cult, see already Rost (1926), though Rost does not discuss parallels to Egyptian barks.
).
means “beating, threshing.” See Egberts (References
Ahlströhm, G.W. 1984. An Archaeological Picture of Iron Age Religions in Ancient Palestine. Studia Orientalia 55: 117–145.
Albright, W.F. 1938. What Were the Cherbim? Biblical Archaeologist 1: 1–3.
Aranov, M.M. 1977. The Biblical Threshing-Floor in the Light of the Ancient Near Eastern Evidence: Evolution of an Institution. Ph.D. Dissertation, New York University.
Barkay, G. 1994. Tombs and Burial Practices in Judah in the Biblical Period. In Graves and Burial Practices in the Land of Israel in the Ancient Period, ed. I. Singer, 96–164. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhaq Ben Zvi (Hebrew).
Barta, Winfried. 1965–66. Zum Ritual der Götterbarke im Neuen Reich. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux” 19: 462–463.
Beckman, G. 1996. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.
Bell, L. 1985. Luxor temple and the cult of the Royal Ka. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44: 251–294.
Blenkinsopp, J. 1969. Kiriath-Jearim and the Ark. Journal of Biblical Literature 88: 143–156.
Bordreuil, P. 2006. pårōket et kappōret. À propops du saint des saints en Canaan et en Judée. In Les espaces syro-mésopotamiens: Dimensions de l’expérience humaine au proche-orient ancien, Subartu, vol. 17, ed. P. Butterlin et al., 161–168. Brussels: Brepols.
Currid, J.D. 1997. Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Dietrich, W. 2007. The Early Monarchy in Israel. The Tenth Century B.C.E. Trans. J. Vette from German. Society of Biblical Literature Biblical Encyclopedia Series 3. Leiden: Brill.
Dussaud, R. 1935. Deux stèles de Ras Shamra portant une dédicace au dieu Dagon. Syria 16: 177–180.
Edel, E. 1983. Der ägyptisch-hethitische Friedensvertag zwischen Ramses II. und Hattusilis III. In Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, ed. R. Borger et al., 135–153. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn. B1, L2.
———. 1994. Die ägyptisch-hethitische Korrespondenz aus Boghazköi in babylonischer und hethitischer Sprache, Rheinisch-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften 77, vol. 1–2. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Egberts, A. 1995. In Quest for Meaning: A Study of the Ancient Egyptian Rotes of Consecrating the Meret-Chests and Driving the Calves, Egyptologische Uitgaven 8, vol. 1–2. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Felie, L. 2003. The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria. Leiden: Brill.
Gaballa, G.A., and K.A. Kitchen. 1969. The Festival of Sokar. Orientalia 38: 1–76.
Gardiner, A.H. 1955. The Ramesseum Papyri. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Geisen, C. 2012. The Ramesseum Dramatic Papyrus: A New Edition, Translation, and Interpretation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Toronto.
Giveon, R. 1974. Les bédouins Shosou des documents égyptiens. Leiden: Brill.
———. 1978. The Impact of Egypt on Canaan, Orbis biblicus et orientalis, vol. 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Göttlicher, A. 1992. Kultschiffe und Schiffskulte im Altertum. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.
Green, A.R.W. 2003. The Storm God in the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Greenberg, M. 1955. The Hab/piru. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.
Griffiths, J.G. 1980. The Origins of Osiris and His Cult, Studies in the History of Religions, vol. 40. Leiden: Brill.
Hannig, R. 1995. Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch, Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt, vol. 64. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Haran, M. 1985. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Healey, J.F. 1999. Dagon דגון. In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn et al., 216–219. Leiden: Brill.
Herrmann, J. 1908. Ägyptische Analogien zum Funde des Deuteronomiums. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 28: 291–302.
Holley, N.M. 1949. The Floating Chest. Journal of Hellenic Studies 69: 39–47.
Homan, M.M. 2002. To Your Tents, O Israel! The Terminology, Function, Form, and Symbolism of Tents in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, vol. 12. Leiden: Brill.
Higginbotham, C. 1996. Elite Emulation and Egyptian Governance in Ramesside Canaan. Tel Aviv 23: 154–169.
Hoffman, Y. 1989. A North Israelite Typological Myth and a Judaean Historical Tradition: The Exodus in Hosea and Amos. Vetus Testamentum 39: 169–182.
Jacobsen, Th. 1975. Religious Drama in Ancient Mesopotamia. In Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East, ed. Hans Goedike and J.J.M. Roberts, 65–97. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
Keel, O. 2006. Reflections of Ptah and Memphite Theology from the Soil of Palestine: Iconographic and Epigraphic Evidence. In Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion, Brown Judaic Series, vol. 346, ed. Gary M. Beckman and Theodore J. Lewis, 239–272. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies.
Kitchen, K.A. 1971. Ramesside Inscriptions, Historical and Biographical, vol. 2. Oxford: B. H. Blackwell Ltd.
———. 1993. The tabernacle—A Bronze Age artifact. Erets Israel 24: 119–129.
Knoppers, G.A. 1995. Aaron’s Calf and Jeroboam’s Calves. In Fortunate the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Astrid B. Beck et al., 92–104. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Koch, K. 1965. Wort und Einheit des Schöpfergottes in Memphis und in Jerusalem. Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 62: 251–293.
Kuhlmann, K.P. 2008. Thrones. In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, ed. Willeke Wendrich, 1–13. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.
———. 1975. Zur Etymologie des Göttesnamens Osiris. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 2: 135–138.
Kyrieleis, H. 1969. Throne und Klinen, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, vol. 24. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Lippke, F. 2011. The Southern Levant in context: A Brief Sketch of Important Features Related to the Religious Symbol System in the Bronze Ages. In Egypt and the Near East—The crossroads: Proceedings of an International Conference on the Relations of Egypt and the Near East in the Bronze Age, Prague, September 1–3, 2010, ed. Jana Mynářová, 221–233. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Charles University in Prague.
Littauer, M.A., J.H. Crouwel, and P. Steinkeller. 1990. Ceremonial Threshing in the Ancient Near East. Syria 52: 15–23.
Loewe, R. 2001. Ark, archaism and misappropriation. In Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 333, ed. Ada Rapoport-Albert and Gillian Greenberg, 113–145. London: Sheffield Academic Press.
McClain, J.B. 2007. The Terminology of Sacred Space in Ptolemaic Inscriptions from Thebes. In Sacred Space and Sacred Function in Ancient Thebes, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, vol. 61, ed. Peter Dorman and Besty M. Bryant, 85–95. Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Merkelbach, R. 2001. Isis Regina-Zeus Sarapis: Die griechisch agyptische Religion nach den Quellen Dargestellt. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Mettinger, T.N.D. 1999. Cherubim. In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn et al., 189–192. Leiden: Brill.
———. 2001. Riddle of Resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East, Coniectanea Biblica, Old Tesament, vol. 50. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
———. 1995. No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series, vol. 42. Stockholm: Almqvust and Wiksell.
Metzger, M. 1985. Königsthron und Gottesthron; Throndarstellungen in Ägypten und im Vorderen Orient, im dritten und zweiten Jahrtausend vor Christus, und Bedeutung für das Verständnis Aussagen über den Thron im Alten Testament, Alter Orient und Altes Testament Bd. 15, 1-2. I: Text; 11: Katalog und Bildtafeln, vol. 1–2. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon und Bercker: Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Morgenstern, J. 1942. The Ark, the Ephod, and the ‘Tent of Meeting’. Hebrew Union College Annual 17: 153–266.
Muchiki, Y. 1999. Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic, SBL Dissertation Series, vol. 178. Atlanta, GA: Society for Biblical Literature.
Musil, Alois. 1928. The Manners and Customs of the Rwala Bedouins, American Geographical Society Oriental Explortations and Studies, vol. 6. New York, NY: Czech Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Naʾaman, N. 2011. The Exodus Story: Between Historical Memory and Historiographical Composition. Journal of Near Eastern Religions 11: 39–69.
Nakhai, B. 2001. Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and Israel. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Neiman, D. 1948. PGR: A Canaanite Cult Object in the Old Testament. Journal of Biblical Literature 67: 55–60.
Nims, C.F., and R.C. Steiner. 1983. A Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2-6 from the Aramaic text in Demotic script. Journal of the American Oriental Society 103: 261–274.
Noegel, S.B. 1997. Moses and Magic: Notes on the Book of Exodus. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 24: 45–49.
Noth, M. 1928. Die israelitischen Personennamen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Novacek, G.V. 2011. Israel: Highlights from the Collections of the Oriental Institute of Chicago, Featuring Objects from the Haas and Schwartz Megiddo Gallery. Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute.
Olyan, S.M. 1988. Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, vol. 34. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.
Quack, J. 2006. Zur Lesung und Deutung des Dramatischen Ramesseumpapyrus. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 133: 72–89.
Rainey, A. 2008. Shasu or Hapiru: Who Were the Early Israelites? Biblical Archaeology Review 34: 51–55.
Redford, D.B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ritner, R.K. 1993. The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, vol. 54. Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Roberts, J.J.M. 1972. The Earliest Semitic Pantheon: A Study of the Semitic Deities Attested in Mesopotamia before Ur III. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Robinson, A.R. 1931. The Mahmal of Moselm pilgrimage. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1: 117–127.
———. 1931. The “Utfa” or camel-litter of the Arabs. Journal of the Royal African Society 30: 69–78.
Rosén, H.B. 1955. Arawna-nom Hittite? Vetus Testamentum 5: 318–320.
Rost, L. 1926. Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids, Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament, vol. 42. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Russell, S.C. 2009. Images of Egypt in Early Biblical Literature: Cisjordan-Israelite, Transjordan- Israelite, and Judahite Portrayals. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Sanders, P. 1994. Ritual, Politics, and the City in Fatimid Cairo. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Sarna, N.M. 1986. Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel. New York, NY: Schocken.
———. 1989. The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society.
Sauneron, S. 1960. The Priests of Ancient Egypt. London: Evergreen Books.
Sayce, A.H. 1921. The Hittite Name Araunah. Jewish Theological Studies 22: 267–268.
Schlögl, H.A. 1980. Der Gott Tatenen: Nach Texten und Bildern des Neuen Reiches, Orbis biblicus et orientalis, vol. 29. Freiburg: Universtätsverlag.
Schwemer, D. 2001. Wettergottgestalten. Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen: Materialien und Studien nach den schriftlichen Quellen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Sethe, K. 1928. Dramatische Texte zu altägyptischen Mysterienspielen, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens, vol. 10. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Singer, I. 1992. Towards the Image of Dagon the God of the Philistines. Syria 69: 431–450.
Smelik, K.A.D. 1992. Hidden in the Ark Narrative: An Analysis of I Samual iv-vi and II Samuel vi. In Converting the Past: Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography, ed. Klaas A.D. Smelik, 35–58. Leiden: Brill.
Smith, M.S. 2003. Astral Religion and the Representation of Divinity: The Cases of Ugarit and Judah. In Prayer, Magic, and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World, ed. Scott B. Noegel et al., 186–206. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Spencer, J.R. 1992. Aaron. In Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, ed. D.N. Freedman, 1–6. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Stadler, M. 2008. Procession. In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, ed. Willeke Wendrich, 1–12. Los Angeles, CA: University of California-Los Angeles.
Stähli, H.-P. 1985. Solare Elemente in Jahweglauben des Alten Testaments, Orbis biblicus et orientalis, vol. 66. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag.
Strange, J. 2004. Some Notes on Biblical and Egyptian Theology. In Egypt, Israel, and the Ancient Mediterranean World: Studies in Honor of Donald B. Redford, Probleme der Ägyptologie, vol. 20, ed. Gary K. Knoppers and Antione Hirsch, 345–360. Leiden: Brill.
Teeter, E. 2011. Religion and Ritual in Ancient Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, E. 1956. Solar Barks from Prow to Prow. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 42: 56–79.
Tooley, A.M.J. 1996. Osiris Bricks. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 82: 167–179.
van der Toorn, K., and C. Houtman. 1994. David and the Ark. Journal of Biblical Literature 113: 209–231.
Tur-Sinai, N.H. 1951. The Ark of God at Beit Shemesh (1 Sam. VI) and Peres ‘Uzza (2 Sam. 6; 1 Chr. XIII). Vetus Testamentum 1: 275–286.
Ulmer, R. 2009. Egyptian Cultural Icons in Midrash, Studia Judaica, vol. 52. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
de Vaux, R. 1965. Ancient Israel, vol. 2. London: Darton, Longman, and Todd Ltd.
Weinstein, J. 1997. Exodus and Archaeological Reality. In Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, ed. E.S. Frerichs and L.H. Lesko, 87–103. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Wiggins, S.A. 1993. Old Testament Dagan in the Light of Ugaritic. Vetus Testamentum 43: 268–274.
Wimmer, D. 1990. Egyptian temples in Canaan and Sinai. In Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim, vol. 2, ed. S. Israelit–Groll, 1065–1106. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Westendorf, W. 1977. Zu frühformen von Osiris und Isis. Göttinger Miszellen 25: 95–113.
Wyatt, N. 1985. ‘Araunah the Jebusite’ and the Throne of David. Studia Theologica 39: 39–53.
Zecchi, M. 1996. A Study of the Egyptian God Osiris Hemag, Archeologia e Storia della civiltà egiziana e del vicino oriente antico, vol. 1. Imola: Editrice la mandragorta.
Zevit, Z. 2001. The religions of Ancient Israel: A synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. London: Continuum.
Zwickel, W. 1999. Der salomonische Temple, Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt, vol. 83. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
———. 1994. Der Tempelkult in Kanaan und Israel. Ein Beitrag zur Kultgeschichte Palästinas von der Mittelbronzezeit bis zum Untergang Judas, Forschungen zum Alten Testament, vol. 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Noegel, S.B. (2015). The Egyptian Origin of the Ark of the Covenant. In: Levy, T., Schneider, T., Propp, W. (eds) Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective. Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04768-3_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04768-3_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04767-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04768-3
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)