Not so much! (Ark update)

Looks like it was a case of bad transaltion. Oh, well. Whatever they have, even if it dates from a latter post-Roman era would have been interetnig to see.

See here:

http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news/6067

http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/News/Cronaca/?id=3.0.3445266776

Ark of the Covenant to be revealed?

See the news article here: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132067

The Ethiopians are planning on revealing what they claim to be the Ark of the Covenant supposedly held in the Church of Mary Zion in Axum. Now it may be an old replica, or even a reliquary of some sort, even if not the genuine object.

I'm not sure how they plan on dating it [they aren't going to let a piece of it get broken off for carbon dating I'll bet].

Even if it is not legitimate it might be an interesting replica. If it does date from the time when Jews may have fled to Ethiopia, then there is a good possibly it is an exact replica made by people who saw the original.

This would be most interesting to see how they represent the Cherubim. We in the modern world tend to use human figurines. Yet, the Cherubim where not unknown in the ancient near east [such as the Arslan Tash Cherub that dates to 8th-9th century BC], and acted as guardian spirits to sacred spaces and thrones of the king. These are similar roles as played in the Old Testament as guardians of Eden (Gen 3:24) and God's throne (Ezek 1:1-28; 10:1-22). A Cherub was always represented as a composite creature, and never completely human in form. Normally they had a human face/head, but then animal bodies, such as a lion body and snake tail. Or even the lower half of a bull. In one case however, in connection with the vision in Ezekiel, the Cherubim may have animal heads such as that of eagles, but with a human body.

Conversely, it may be possible to help date the object based on said representations. A “Cherub” in the modern post-renaissance sense or as seen in some Christian iconography would suggest a latter date as a reinterpretation of the Ark. However if the Ark’s Cherubim fit the pattern found in the Ancient Near East, then it [although certainly not proof of being the genuine Ark] does show it as coming out of the same time period and cultural region of the original.

Further Reading:

Ark of the Covenant: [not claiming veracity or anything, these are just what I am most aware of]

"The Sign and the Seal" by Graham Hancock

"In Search of the Lost Ark of the Covenant" by Cornuke and Halbrook

"Lost Temple Treasures" by Randall Price

"Mysteries Of The Bible: Essays by the Biblical Archeology Society" ed by Molly Meinhardt

Cherubim:

Van Der Torn, Becking, and Van Der Horst “Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible” p. 190

Othmar Keel “Symbolism of the Biblical World” p.142

Elie Borowski, “Cherubim: God's Throne?,” Biblical Archeology Review 1995, p.37.

Background study in the Early Church: "the gods of the nations"

The Early Church didn’t just produce its theology of Satan and spiritual warfare out of nowhere. Going into their theology was a background of thought that had roots in the Old Testament, flourished during the intertestamental period and became solidified for Christians in the New Testament. The Fathers of the Early Church adopted these concepts and they became a standard part of Christian thinking.

The primary place to begin with the Fathers’ understanding of the Church’s place in the cosmic war is the Jewish and subsequent New Testament backgrounds to the demonic and the world. In the Old Testament, demonology is sparse but there is a definite idea of evil spirits in connection to pagan gods. The intertestamental period saw a lot of development in demonology, which was farther endorsed by Jesus and followed by Paul with the other New Testament writers. Combined, these ideas of the demonic and its connection to the world outside the People of God became the foundations for the Father’s own demonology and views of the Church militant.

Although Bamberger argues that Judaism has always been rationalistic, and denied the realty of the nations gods, (Bamberger, “Fallen Angels” 74) the Old Testament has many concepts that were farther adapted by the Fathers. Fallen angels are found in Genesis and Psalms, showing a real belief in evil spirits. Many times sacrifices to the pagan gods are considered sacrifices to the demonic. It is also evident that these ideas were real for the Jewish people leading up to the Second Temple period. 

In the Old Testament there was a class of beings who, due to sin, fell and became what the New Testament would call demons. A major possible reference to this is in Genesis 61:1-4. (Others include Psalm 82 and Daniel 10) Here the “Sons of God” came to take wives from the daughters of men. Certainly it can be debated whither these are angels, but for the purpose of the Fathers background it is important to know that this was the interpretation they would have inherited. It was the traditional interpretation, and found its way into such influential intertestamental literature as 1 Enoch (1 En 6-8) and was known by enough of the Early Church that the period after the Fathers that Justin Martyr uses this passage for his theory of the origin of demons. (2 Apo 5)

 

Throughout the Old Testament the Israelites are condemned for worshipping these demons as gods through idolatry. One prominent example is Deuteronomy 32:14-21. At first God condemned their forefathers for making sacrifices to the ~ydIVe [shedim for non Hebrew font] which is translated as demons (NRSV, NASB, NJB, daimoni,oij [daimoniois for non Greek font] in LXX). These are called “gods” that they did not know, and connected in 32:21 with the worship of idols. It is notable that the LXX rendered this word as daimoni,oij, which latter became in the New Testament and Church Fathers the term for fallen angels.

During the intertestamental period this association between evil sprits, increasingly focused on Beliar, became stronger. Jubilees 15:33 presents Beliar as the primary being behind Israel abandoning the covenant of circumcision. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, references are made to Beliar as leader of the spirits of deceit (TLevi 3:3, TJud 25:3), and his works contrasted with the law of the Lord (TLevi 19:1). In the Martyrdom of Isaiah Beliar is explicitly referred to as the ruler of the “this world” (2:4). Satan in the literature is probably to be seen as synonymous with Beliar, as he takes the same roles of ruler of the wicked spirits (TDan 5:6; Jub 10:11), and contrasted with the Lord (TAsh 6:4; MartIs 2:2). All this produced a mild dualism that would later be picked up by the Fathers through the New Testament.

As for Bamberger, the OT combined with the intertestamental data suggests there was a Jewish tradition that truly saw the nations’ gods as real beings. The mild dualism was not just a product of hellenized Jewish-Christianity, but came out of the Old Testament ideas of idolatry. When the Old Testament talks about the gods being “vain”, it is not likely a ontological statement, but functional one. They implied inferiority more then non-existence. (Langton, “Demonology” 184) This is the background that influenced both the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers.

Following the trajectory into the New Testament, Jesus and Paul both connect the idols and demons, and go one step farther to make Satan the ruler of this world, confirming the role of Beliar in the intertestamental period. For Jesus, his combat is with Satan and the fallen angels, as evidenced by his exorcisms and statements about Satan. Paul as well sees Christ in light of a cosmic war between God and Satan. By the time of the writing of the last New Testament book, the ideas culminated into Revelation with foresaw the end of the cosmic conflict.

During the ministry of Jesus, he defines his messiahship in contrast to the kingdom of Satan. One of the main ways he does this is by performing exorcisms. These exorcisms all happen after Jesus’ confrontation with Satan in the wilderness and are intended to create a pattern of cosmic combat within the Gospels. In the wilderness temptation, Satan offers Jesus the “kingdoms of the world” (Mt 4:1). The passage presents a real offer and so implies that Satan is in some way seen as ruler of the world’s kingdoms by Matthew. This is the first instance of Satan in the role that was made prominent by Satan/Beliar in the intertestamental period. Later, Jesus makes the statement that a sign of the Kingdom of God is the casting out of demons (Mat 12:28). These ideas of casting out appear also in John, where Jesus connects his crucifixion with the casting out of the “ruler of this world”. Considering the history of this term, Jesus is likely considering this to be more then just the emperor, yet he uses the phrase in relation to his coming capture and death by the Jewish and Roman authorities (Jn 14:30). This parallelism between Satan and the governing world that persecutes God’s people will continue through Paul to the Fathers.

Paul’s main comments over idols and demons can be found in 1 Corinthians 10:14-20. Paul warns the Corinthians against the worship of idols. They cannot, he says, both partake of the Eucharist and sacral meals of the temples. The reason he says this is that, although the gods of the nations are nothing, they are focal points for demon worship. In Paul’s mind, the pagans’ sacrifices are actually being made to demons, following the Old Testament ideas in Deuteronomy 32:14-21. These demons are the ones who once lead the people in disobedience, which is equated with following the world (Eph 2:2), as Satan is the “god” of this world (2Cor 4:4). This is why he considers those who are rejected from the community, to also have been handed over to Satan (1Cor 5:5-13), who is in control of the people outside of the Church, (Langton, “Demonology” 184) those who were once enslaved to beings who were not gods (Gal 4:8). This theme would latter be picked up on by the Fathers when dealing with heretics and schismatics.

Other writers also portray this cosmic war between Christ and Satan. In Hebrews it was specifically the mission of Jesus to destroy the works of the devil (Heb 2:14). Revelation is even stronger, as its apocalyptic imagery presents the eschaton in the context of cosmic war. Revelation 12 is important in that it is actually commentated on by Papias. The great war in heaven where Satan is thrown down by St. Michael and his angels in then culminated by Christ who returns to destroy his enemies and have Satan thrown by an angel even farther down into the lake of fire (Rev 20:1-4). This is an important passage for Papias’ demonology. He sees these fallen angels as once given rule over creation, but by their sin lost their proper place. (see fragment in Andrew of Caserea)

For Jesus and the New Testament writers, Satan is the ruler of this age, and behind him are the evil powers that lure men into rebellion against God. In the Gospels, Jesus is portrayed as the champion of God who casts out the servants of Beliar and ultimately is martyred by the “ruler of this world” who is in control of the human governments. In Paul, Satan is the ruler of the evil spirits who is behind the idols of the nations, and so led them astray. For the other writers, Satan was in charge of death and leads his armies against God, and who was defeated by Christ and will be finally conquered by Christ at the end of the age.

These ideas would become part of the theology of the Apostolic Fathers both in the way they viewed the world outside the Church as an agent of Satan and how they saw both heretics and schismatics as instruments of satanic powers. All three of these concepts would continue to influence Christian thought throughout the history of the Church.