Archaeologica.org

There's no such thing as miracles, if there was there would be honest politicians.

Even miracles can't do the impossible, Digit.

A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar.

H. L. Mencken

More pissing and moaning about Qumran and the Essenes.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/803283.html

"It was not the Essenes who buried the scrolls in the caves near the Qumran ruins," Magen adds. "The scrolls were buried by Jews who escaped from Jerusalem after the destruction of the Second Temple."

Two more episodes on the "real" Mount Sinai, which, for the uninitiated was a big part of Jacobovici's god-awful Exodus Decoded.

One imagines that he'll reach the same silly conclusions again!

I really enjoyed the NG show about the Ark. That's worth kicking around sometime. Fascinating mystery there.

They didn't say anything new and different, but I enjoyed it.

Archaeologist Eric Cline nailed it for me....."not a single shred of evidence that the ark ever existed."

Just a re-hash of the Exodus Decoded. He assumes the Exodus story is true and argues with experts and plays with goats and rides a horse and sings and goes to a restaurant...

Oh, yes. Of course he claims to have found the mountain.

Agreed Min that there is no evidence that the Ark existed. BUT, on a purely logical basis the Most Holy in the temple was built for some purpose, if not for the Ark then it is reasonable to ask for what?

There is not a single artifact existing from "Solomon's Temple" either, Digit.

In fact, current archaeology holds that Jerusalem did not become a major population center until two centuries after Solomon.

It seems that the Ark and the Temple are fictitious.

Absolutely no offence intended Min but I do think you're being a bit selective with that statement. Not too many years ago that same statement would have been just as accurate for Knossos and Priam's city would it not?

Except when they started excavating Knossos and Troy they found scads of artifacts.

Archaeology has been digging in and around Jerusalem for 150 years and still the only artifact (and it is disputed in some circles) that actually points to any sort of Davidic dynasty is the Tel Dan stele....and, as a best case, all that says is a reference to a "House of David."

I'm not quibling over the lack of evidence Min, just the standards that we apply.
I was referring in my earlier post to Herod's temple,not Solomon's, either its construction was one of the greatest con tricks ever or it was built to house something. True that Troy and Knossos produce evidence, AFTER Schlieman and Evans defied dogma and found the ruins.
50 years ago anyone who seriously tried to discuss the possibilty of life elsewhere in the universe would have been booked into the funny farm. Now most thinking people accept that it is inevitable, WITH NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.
All I ask is that we are consistent with our viewpoint. The Ark may or may not have existed,but we do have the supposed house for it,whereas no alien space craft have yet been revealed nor radio signal etc.
On that basis which evidence is the stronger?

The last biblical mention of the Ark was supposedly during the reign of King Josiah, c 630 BC.

When that temple (probably built by Hezekiah a century or so earlier) was destroyed by the Babylonians there was no mention of the Ark in either Judaic or Babylonian accounts.

After the return from the Babylonian Exile a temple was built by Zerubabbel c. 520. They had no ark to house.

Pompey the Great conquered Jerusalem in 63 BC. Flavius Josephus (not always a reliable source but unfortunately all we've got) recounts:

6. But there was nothing that affected the nation so much, in the calamities they were then under, as that their holy place, which had been hitherto seen by none, should be laid open to strangers; for Pompey, and those that were about him, went into the temple itself whither it was not lawful for any to enter but the high priest, and saw what was reposited therein, the candlestick with its lamps, and the table, and the pouring vessels, and the censers, all made entirely of gold, as also a great quantity of spices heaped together, with two thousand talents of sacred money. Yet did not he touch that money, nor any thing else that was there reposited;

So, no ark.

Herod then built another temple later in his reign but still had no ark. The Temple by this point seemed to serve as a place of sacrifice and annual pilgrimage.

However....they'd gone at least five centuries of recorded history without any sort of ark. Oddly, they did not seem to miss it all that much.

I agree Min. But that is not my point. The point I'm trying to make is that people accept, for example, ETs with even less proof. So can we please accept that Troy and Knossos were discovered because two people accepted folk tales, and that ETs may exist, or that no evidence equals no Ark no ETs no Knossos and no Troy.
Not half and half or pick which bits you prefer.

Well, I'll certainly agree that lots of people accept all kinds of silly shit with absolutely no evidence to back it up at all. Such is the basis of religion!

Schliemann, who really was at the early edge of "archaeology" (or, more likely 'treasure hunting') has the advantage of being proven right, after a fashion. In fact, although he found Hissarlik, most of his conclusions have proven to be wrong, but he did get off his ass and get out there digging.
In that sense he gets the same credit as Columbus, who set out to go one place, found another, got back not knowing where he had been and did it all on borrowed money.