Ark of the covenant (Hastings' Dictionary)

i. Name.— The ark dhNn) was the most ancient and most sacred of the religious symbols of the Heb. nation. Its name in the oldest sources is ' the ark of J"' (mrr piK), or ' the ark of God ' (cnSx "k). In Dt we first* meet with the degignation 'ark of the Covenant of J" {" n->3 "k), bt 10" 31'- "»•'«, shortened elsewhere to the familiar ' ark of the Covenant,' Jos 3'- • etc. In •everal passjigcs of the older hist, books (cf.

LXX text of 1 S 4'°) which have been edited by writers of the Deuteronomic school, the earlier form ' ark of J"' has been expanded to 'ark of the Covenant of J"' (as is clear from such graiimiatical impossibilities as we find in .Jos 3""), and the favourite ex|)ri'S- sion 'ark of the Covenant' intentionally or unin- tentionally substituted for I he earlier forms. A •till later designation, ' ark of the testimony ' (n-vn "n), occurs only in P, Ex 25« etc.

The rest of the names occasionally met with are merely variations of these. Throughout all the books we find ' the ark ' as the poi)ular and universjiUy intelligible designation. ii. Hi.sTORY OF THE Ark. — In this article we propose to confine ourselves to the history and significance of the ark as given in the pre-exilic literature. Its place in the scheme of the Priests' Code will be discussed in the article TaBER.VACI.E. In the prophetic narrative of the Pent.

(JE) the ark first appears as an object of peculiar sanctity in the important pas,sage Nu 10*"'-.t Here it is expressly recognised a.s the leader of the host in the march through the desert, in virtue of its being, in some sense, the dwelling-place of J". In another passage fnmi the snme source, Nu 14", the ark is intimately associated with Moses. • n-iD In Nu l(m (J) 14" (E) (cf. Bacon, TripU Trad, nf tht Baod. pp. 171, 180) t« ftlmoat certainly an edttorUl inaertion. t Proliahly J, see n.

Had these sources come down to us intact, we should have had much earlier information than anything which we now have regarding the origin and construction of the ark. No one can read the present text of Ex 33 without being struck with the abrupt transition from vv.'"' to v.'-, and with the sudden introduction of 'the tent' (v.') as of something already exiilaiued. We may therefore consider it a matter .

of certainty that the compiler of the Pent, has omitted from the prophetic source the accounts of the erection of ' the tent of meeting ' as iuconsLstent with the much fuller account in P. Another question now emerges. Did the excised portion of JE also contain an account or accounts of the construction of the ark ?

To this an affirmative answer must be given ; for if we read carefully the retrospect given in iJt 10'"°, and bear in mind that the whole of I)'s historical references are taken from the prophetic narratives, we can scarcely have any doubt that in JE, as it lay before the author of D, there must have been a record of the construction by Moses of 'an ark of wood' (Dt 10') before his ascent to the mount.

In the absence of the original text of these older sources, it is no longer possible to speak with certainty as to their mode of conceiving J"'s relation to the ark. The most probable view seems to be that already referred to as found in the antique poetical fragment, Nu lO"-**, where J" is conceived of as personally present in the ark, and guiding the march of His chosen people.

The same representation is met with somewhat later in the composite narrative (chiefly JE)* of the passage of the Jordan, in which the ark, borne by the priests, shows the way, while the people follow at a considerable distance (Jos S"-). During the subsequent conquest of W. Pal.

, as related in the Books of Jos and Jg 1-2 from materials of various dates, the ark and the tent of meeting must have had tJieir headtjuarters in the standing camp at Gilgal (Jos 9' 10^), the former we may suppose frequently accompanying the tribes to battle. Thus we know the prominence given to the ark in the siege of Jericho (Jos 6) ; and the sacrifice in the presence of the ark on Mt Ebal (Jos 8" from D'-') may be taken as a typical episode in the history of the conquest.

From Gilgal the head- quarters were moved by divine command to Bethel (Jg2"'-).t The next resting-place of the ark was at Shiloh, in the territory of Ephraim. Here, according to P (Jos 18'), it was deposited by Joshua himself, and here it is found at the close of the period of the Judges (1 S 3'). The original tentt is now replaced by a temple (1 S 1' 3'), the guardians of which are members of an ancient priestly family (1 IS 2"), with Samuel the Ephraimite as attendant.

The following section (clis. 4'-7') is a document of the first importance as a record of the popular concejitions of the ancient Hebrews with regard to the ark. The various incidents in the narrative are too familiar to need repetition. The leading thought throughout is the conviction that the presence of the ark secures the presence of J" Himself in the camp of the Hebrews.§ The capture of ttie sacred object by the Pbilis- •8ee Bennett's 'Joshua' In nnupt's BibU ; KIttel, HM. I., Enif. tr.

, pp. 282, 28.1 ; Driver's art. ' .losliua ' In Smith's Bfla. t See Moore's Comm. ad loc. ; Kiltel. Enp. tr., pp. 270, 276. So most moderns, MT liuchim. The tnulition that the ark once htul iu home in Bethel may be recoi;nised In Jg 2Q('^S^, a late mnrt,Mni\l k'oss. I The Konls of 1 B 2»'>, wantlnff In LXX, ore admltte<llr • very late addition to the original text (Wellb., Driver, Kloet., Budde). I This Is dear from the whole tenor of the narmtlve without our reqiilrlnK to rvtul, with Ktost.

, ' our Oo<1 ' (ij'.iVh) for ' unto us (4^). tt Is also more than prohable, In view of the femlti. construction in v.'", that we should render, ' that Aj tuMy < and save us.' Of. 60. 150 ARK OF THE COVENANT ARK OF THE COVENANT tines, the ellect of the news on the aged Eli, the incidents of its sojourn in Phil, territory, and its restoration, are graphically told by the narrator.

* Aft«r a short stay at Bethshemesh, the ark is removed to Kiriath-jearLm and deposited in the house of Abinadab ' in the hill,' while Eleazar, his son, is set apart as its guardian. Here it remained, according to a later addition to the text, for twenty years, a period admittedly too short by at least a generation.t Why an object of such sanctity was not restored to its proper home in the temple of Shiloh we can only conjecture.

Most probably the temple had been destroyed, and Shiloh J itself occupied by the Philistines. As a result a period of spiritual declension followed, lasting well into the reign of Saul § (cf. 1 Ch 13'). The centre of the purest teaching must have been the home of Samuel at Ramah (1 S 7"), the fruit of which we may perhaps trace in the higher religious con- ceptions that mark the reign of David.

This sovereign, once securely seated on the throne of 'all Israel,' took active steps for the removal of the ark to his new capital on the slopes of Ophel, as related at some lenr;th in 2 S 6 and lovingly expanded in 1 Ch 13. Tne text of the former passage has suffered greatly, but the general sense is clear. From the house of Abinadab at Kiriath-jearim [othenvise Baalath (of Judah), Jos 15'] the ark is brought in state on the way to Jerus.

The sons of Abinadab, Uzzah and Ahio, are in charge of the new cart on which the ark has been placed, the former walking 1| beside the ark, the latter guiding the oxen in front. Dismayed by a sign of the divine displeasure, David desists from his purpose for a time, leaving the ark in the custody of Obed-edom the Gittite. After three months, however, the removal is successfully accomplished, and the ark safely deposited ' in the midst of the tent that David had pitched for it' (v ").

After this, in the epigrammatic words of tlie Chronicler, the ark had rest (1 Ch 6")- For the last time we meet with the aik as the re- presentative of J" on the field of battle in the campaign against the children of Ammon (2 S 11").

Somewhat later, on the occasion of Absalom's rebellion, when the priests Zadok and Abiatharll (2 S IS-^"), in accordance with ancient custom, wished to lake the ark as the guarantee of J"'s presence with them, the king shows that he has attained to a worthier view of the divine nature by ordering the restoration of the ark to its proper abode in Jerusalem.

The last chapter in the history of the ark opens with its removal by Solomon from its modest tent, and its installation in the inner sanctuary of the temple, ' under the wings of the cherubim ' (1 K S'"-). From this point onwards there is no mention of the ark in the older histor'cal books.

Was it, as some think, among 'the treasures of the house of the Lord ' which Shishak carried off • It ia important to observe that the MT of 619 will not bear the rendering,' put upon it by AV and RV, 'because they loolted into the ark. The text, however, is corrupt. Adopting' Klostermann's ' happy sugf^estion ' (Budde) we render, ' But the Bona of J. did not rfjnice among the men of B. when they beheld the ark of J", and lie smote.' etc.

t There is no ^Tonud in the text for the statement in Smith's DIT^ 'that to Kiriiith-Jearim "ail the house of Israel" resorted to seek J '.' Whatever may be the meaning of the obscure and probably comij>t i.n^'i, 72, the verse serves as the introduc- tion to the following narrative of Samuel's prophetic activity. 1 It is a mistake to base the assertion that ' in the earhpart of Saul's reign Ahiah was the Lord'.

s priest in Shiloh' (Simth's D& — Ark) on 1 S H'S for the qualifying phrase refers, not to Ahiah, btit to Kli. Equally groundless is the supposition ipp. eit.) that the ark may have been at Nob. { In 1 S Hif"* where the true rendering Is clearly 'the ephod' (LXX ; cf. v.s), the retention of 'the ark' in RV is Inexcusable. V.Wb ia, of course, an explanatory gloss like I Emend. ■Jijh ,itjn, t,<«, Then., Dr., Kitt., Bud. ^ The text U again uncertain ; see Driver, in loe.

SO early as the reign of Rehoboam ? (1 K 14*). Oi was it first removed by Manasseh to make way for his image of Astarte (2 Ch 33'), and reinstated by Josiah (35'), to perish finally in the destruction 01 city and temple by Nebuchadrezzar 1 The lattei seems on the whole the more probable view (cf.

2 Es 10=2), if the single reference, Jer 3"'", really implies (which is doubtful) the existence of the ark in the prophet's day, although it must be confessed that the silence of the rest of the pro- phetic literature is difficult to explain (cf. Kuenen, liel. of Israel, i. p. 233). The fable of 2 Mac 2« is evidently based on the passage of Jeremiah just quoted. There was no ark in the second temple (Jos. Wars, V. v. 5). iii.

From the analo^T of other objects bearing the same name,* as well as from the measurements in the scheme of the priestly code (Ex 25'°), we may best think of the ark as an oblong chest of acacia or shittim wood (so Dt 10'- ', doubtless foUo\ving the other sources J E ; see § ii. above). In the absence of the original text of these sources in Ex 33.

34 it is impossible to say with absolute certainty whether the ark was represented by them as furnished with figures corresponding to the cherubim of P (Ex 25'*-). They are not mentioned in Dt 10'' ', nor in the Books of Sam. or Kings — the phrase ' that sitteth upon the cherubim' (RV) of 1 S i, 2 S 6^ if not a Ute gloss (so Kuenen, Smend, Nowack, etc.), being capable of another explanation. The language of 1 K 8' further seems to imply the absence of cherubim on the ark itself.

This result is con- firmed by what we may infer as to the size of the sacred chest, for we find it carried by two priests (2 S 1529, also in corrected text of v.« 1 S 4"'). An important difference of representation exists between the provisions of the Priests' Code — by which the ark had to be carried by Levites (Nu 3" 4'°), as distinguished from a higher caste of Aaronic priests — and those of the older legislation of Dt.

First, indeed, among the privileges of the whole priestly tribe of 'Levi enumerated in Dt 10 —privileges assigned to them, we can scarcely doubt, as the reward of their zeal and fidelity in the cause of J" (Ex 32^*-)— is that of bearing ' the ark of J"' (cf. Dt 31»-=»). And this is in accord with the evidence of the older historical books in which the priests are the bearers of the ark [see reff. above, and cf. Jos 3' (E), •"• (J), 6«-" (E), 8» 1 K 22« 8'-H etc.]

As to the precise relation of the ark in early times to the ritual of sacrifice, we have no contemporary evidence. iv. Every student of OT who has realised to what extent the pre-exilic literature has been worked over by later editors, will appreciate the dilliculty, if not the impossibility, of gaining an accurate estimate of the conceptions entertained of tlie ark in the earliest times. So much depends also on the opinion we may form of the historical value of even our oldest sources.

This much, however, seems clear. The ark is in these sources something more than a mere symbol of the divine presence. By the popular mind, at least, J" was conceived as actually residing in the ark, — a conviction clearly reflected in the ancient fragment, Nu 10^'''. That the ark was regarded as, in some sense, the abode of the Deity, is apparent also, as we saw above, from the early narratives in the Books of Samuel. Even by David himself, if we can tru.

st the reading, the ark is still spoken of as God's habitation (2 S 15»). Only on the basis of this conception can we • Viz. the outer coffin of Joseph's mummy (On 5038), and the chest set up by Jehoiada the priest in the temple (2 K 12'^' = .MT lotr.) t In 1 K 84 and is a late insertion (see 2 Ch 55).

In many passages, such as 1 S 61^, the original practice baa been OAde to conform to the requirements of the priestly legislatioa AKKITKS AK-MEMAN VERSION 151 explain thu fact that in all the passaj;e3 we have Btudied, 'before tlie ark of J" is identical willi, or parallel to, 'before J"' Himself (cf. e.g. Jos C' with 6").

What is done in close proximity to the ark is everywhere represented as done in the presence of J", as sacrilice (2 S 6"), castinjr of lots (Jos 18«- '"), dancing (2 S ti"), and the like. With tlie !i read of more developed views of religion under the inlluenee of prophetic teaching, the import.inee of the ark undoubtedly decreased, a fact to which we may perhaps ascribe the silence of later writings regarding it.

The ark in any case must be regarded as from the first a national and not a merely tribal sanctuary.! Its loss is bewailed as a national calamity (1 S 4"'-"). Nor does the writer see reason (even granted that 1 K 8' may be a gloss) for rejecting the ancient tradition which the author of lit, found in his sources, that the ark contained the tables oriyinally deposited there by Moses himself (lit lu-j.

The view now generally adopted by continental writers, that if the ark really contained anything at all, it was a stone or stones of fetish origin, involves a conception of Moses and his teaching which the writer cannot share. On the other hand, the statement that the ark contained also the pot of manna and Aaron's rod that budded (Ue 9'), seems based on a late Jewish tradition. LiTBRATi'RE. — The Comm. of Dillniann on Exodus, Driver OQ Dt, KlutiUmiann on Sam.

and Kings ; the critical works o( Wellhausen and Driver on the text of tlie Books of Sam. ; the treatises on Heb. archeology of Benzingcr and Nowack (vol. ii.) ; articles in Stade's Zeitickryft by Kautzsch, 1880 ; Seyring, 18&1 ; and esp. Couard, 1892 (' Die reli^'iose nationale Bedeutg. der Lade'); also art. 'Bundeslade' in Kiehm's Uaiid- uart.^ ; Koatera in Thfot. Tij<Uchri/t, 1893 ; and K. Knetzschmar, Die Bundavortteliung im A.T. (189ti), c. 7, ' Die Bundeslade.' A. R. S. Kennedy.

ARKITES Cpiv, Gn 10", 1 Ch 1"), represented &.S descendants of Canaan, founders of the Phcen. city of Arka, in later times Ciesarea Libani, birth- place of the Koinan emperor Alexander Severus, aliout 12 miles N. of TnpolLs. Arka is also men- tioned in the inscription of Tiglath-pile-ser II. as one of the towns reduced by that monarch (Schrader, Cun I 87, 240). Jos. {Ant. l. vl 2) states that Ariicas, one of the sons of Canaan, possessed Arce, situated at the N.W. base of the Leoanon.

It was 8till a place of consiilerable importance in the Middle Ages, and 8U.stained a severe sie^'e in A.D. li:{8, but was taken by tlie CriLiaders. Its site is now marked by the ruins of Tell Arka. See Schurer, ilJP L ii 2U1 f. J. MaCPHERSON. ARM (!fii\ zer/ln'), the outstretched arm ; also the straight foreleg of an animal 1. As a unit of meiLsurement arm follows the hand with its digit, palm, span, and gives ,the standard length called the 'amvuih (see Weights and Measures, a.v. 'cubit').

As this seems to have varied from 17 '6 in. to26'I9, it is possible that besides the reckon- ing of the fore-arm, there was another of the arm's-length, the latter corresponding to the modern Arab, dhird'a, 24 in. The kindred Arab, word for full-arm (d/uird'a) also means, like the tig. use of zertin, capacity, inlluenee, power. 2. Fiff. ust of Arm. — Among Orientals the extended arm is a familiar sign of animation and action.

During the excitement of discussion, it is an understood prelude to speech, and implies the possession of something tliat ought to be heard. Throughout the Hihie the a. is an expressive emblem of power to direct, control, seize, overcome, and hence also describes the purpose, either of punishment or protection, towards which the power is emiiloyed. Thus the Exoilus is freq. referred to as tlie 'out- •Cf.

also J(f 20^, where for 'stood before it' render 'stood bafore him' ; see Moort-, in /«)*•. t Wellli., Stode, anil (itlnm have iiu(rgested that the ark was thv j/aZ/o^iiurn of thu lril>r of Joseph. sti etched a.' of God. Similarly the a. of Pharaoh is .said to be broken ; and the doom of Eli's family is called the cutting oil' of his a., and that of his father's house.

In the same way, the unwelcome novelty of the spiritual kingdom and its living sacrilice raises the prophetic lament — ' to whom hath the a. of the Lord been revealed'? (Is 53'). Further, the original meaning of power is some- times transcended, and by frequency of special association the motive of holiness is translerred to the a. — 'The Lord hath made bare his holy arm ' ( Is 52'"). On the other hand, utter powerlesa- nessisthea. ' cleandried-up' (Zee 11"). Cf.

Job's imprecation on the abuse of power (Job 31*-). So the appeal of the helpless is ' Put on strength, O arm of the Lord!' (Is 51'), Hence, linally, the contrast between the man who makes llesh his arm, and Israel for whose security ' underneath are the Everlasting Arms' (Ut 33-''). See also Hand. G. M. Mackib.