Ark Narrative Research Articles

Remembering the lost ark: The ark narrative in its contexts

The ark endures not as physical artifact, but as cultural memory and verbal icon embedded in the textual icon of the Bible. This article examines the ark narrative (1 Sam. 4–6) in its various contexts, including its biblical and ancient Near Eastern ones, and posits icons as a profitable heuristic device. I present the ways that the ark and its story respond to ancient Near Eastern tropes and suggest that the reason for the ark’s capture lies in the characters’ failure to communicate with and obey the deity. My primary contribution lies in reading the narrative alongside its sequel, 1 Samuel 7, which recontextualizes the story by displaying divine power without the ark and retrojecting a Deuteronomistic rationale for the Israelite loss. I also consider its (post-)exilic reception and place it alongside Priestly and Deuteronomic presentations of the ark, which differ in detail but share a common goal, especially when read as part of a single sacred document.

Humor in the Midst of Tragedy: The Comic Vision of 1 Samuel 4–6

Abstract The presence of the humorous or comic in the Hebrew Bible has been well established in numerous studies. Somewhat surprisingly, however, the ark narrative in 1 Sam 4–6 has not featured regularly in works on humor in the Hebrew Bible, despite the fact that commentators regularly note the dark humor present in this narrative. I seek to fill that gap by offering a humorous reading of the ark narrative in 1 Sam 4–6, arguing not only that humor is present in the story and therefore worthy of attention but also that the dark humor of this narrative is part of how the story works. One does not fully appreciate the point of this narrative unless one sees the funny side. I will utilize the benign violations theory of humor to see the way this story plays with the reader's understanding of “the other” first by mocking the other in order to give the Israelites hope and then by asking just how other the other really is in order to convict the Israelites. In order to see how the story does both of these things, we need to pay attention to its comic vision.

The Wicked “Sons of Eli” and the Composition of 1 Samuel 1–4

Abstract Scholars have struggled to reach consensus about the literary relationship between the anti-Elide material in 1 Sam 2–3 and the so-called “Ark Narrative” in 1 Sam 4–6. I propose a new resolution to this problem. I argue that the two named characters, Hophni and Phinehas, have been introduced secondarily to and independently from the unnamed “sons of Eli” and represent a redactional layer that runs through chs. 1–2, and 4. Before the addition of these characters, the “sons of Eli” designated a generic priesthood associated with the character, Eli. The material about this priesthood is comprised of discrete passages that have been appended to Samuel’s birth story and its extension. The anti-Elide material was later connected to 1 Sam 4 through the addition of Hophni and Phinehas, who serve to recast the Elides’ iniquities as the reason for the Israelite defeat and loss of the ark.

Kiriath-jearim: In Judah or in Benjamin?

The town of Kiriath-jearim, identified at Deir el-ʿAzar above the village of Abu-Ghosh, has come to scholarly attention recently, due to the renewed excavations led by Israel Finkelstein and Thomas Römer. Based on their preliminary finds and on their reading of the biblical texts, they have interpreted the Iron Age II B-C fortified compound that they have begun to expose on the summit of the site as a northern Israelite fortified compound, “aimed at dominating the vassal kingdom of Judah”. This paper reexamines the position of Kiriath-jearim on the border between Judah and Benjamin according to both the biblical texts and the site’s geographical location, within the context of the ongoing discussions on the biblical tribal territories, that of Benjamin in particular, the “ark narrative” and other texts that mention Kiriath-jearim, and challenges the excavators’ interpretation of the character and purpose of the site during the Iron Age II.

The Exodus Tradition in Psalm 105 and the Wisdom of Solomon: Notable Similarities

The hymn found in 1 Chronicles 16:8–36 contains portions of Psalms 105:1–15; 96:1–13; and 106:47–48. Since the hymn occurs in a context which focuses upon placing the Ark of the Covenant on Mt. Zion, it is noteworthy that the verses from Pss. 105 and 106 say nothing about the Exodus, since the other verses of these two Pss. are heavy in the Exodus tradition, the primary location of the Ark narrative in the Pentateuch. Is it possible that these Pss. were known only in part or that portions were known to other writers? This article focuses on the similarities that exist between Ps. 105:16–45 and the Wisdom of Solomon. While the similarities do not prove that Ps. 105 directly influenced Pseudo-Solomon’s work, they are provoking enough to lead to that possible conclusion.

Who can stand before a holy God? Literary artistry and theological imagination in the Ark Narrative

This article advocates for an interpretation of biblical stories that takes into account their nature and the way in which they are told. The argument begins with observing the predicament of the biblical interpreter in using contemporary historical and/or literary methods to interpret an ancient text expected to convey a theological message. It then offers a close reading of the Ark Narrative (1 Sam 4:1b–7:1) which exemplifies how theological conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the story alone once its literary structure and dramatic development are identified.

Shaping the Archive in Late Medieval England: History, Poetry, and Performance by Sarah Elliott Novacich

Reviewed by: Shaping the Archive in Late Medieval England: History, Poetry, and Performance by Sarah Elliott Novacich Daniel Sawyer sarah elliott novacich, Shaping the Archive in Late Medieval England: History, Poetry, and Performance. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 97. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Pp. xi, 214. isbn: 978–1–107–17705–5. $99.99. How did medieval people perceive the labor of history? How did they perceive, that is, not the past itself, but the processes of understanding the past and of gathering together information about it? In this imaginative and engaging book, Sarah Elliott Novacich explores these questions via three episodes in sacred history: the stories of Eden, Noah, and the Harrowing of Hell. Each episode involves the creation, selection, or recollection of what might be called, in the modern theoretical sense of the term, [End Page 110] ‘an archive.’ Mystery plays portraying these stories are central to the book, but the study also travels through an eclectic range of other primary texts. The first chapter proposes that there is a contradiction baked into the idea of the Garden of Eden, a location in space and time which serves both as a lost original which the postlapsarian world copies, badly, and as something recorded, re-recorded, and so to some extent summoned up through the creative exercise of imagination in that same postlapsarian world. Novacich identifies a blurring of the two understandings in the mystery plays’ struggle to stage the Garden. In the second chapter, Novacich considers treatments in romances and chronicles of Noah’s Ark and other seafarers (including Brutus) whose medieval stories resonate with that of Noah. These stories, she suggests, orbit uneasily around the processes of selection and exclusion involved in stocking a boat, but also, analogously, involved in compiling a record or history. The third chapter extends this thread into an examination of the character of Noah’s wife in the mystery plays. In Noah’s wife, a previously minor figure who plays an expanded role in later medieval English dramatic versions of the Ark narrative, Novacich finds a speaker who points out the losses and problems implied by Noah’s selection activity, in ways analogous to some moves in the history of modern feminist literary criticism. The fourth chapter turns to the Harrowing of Hell and other medieval narratives which might recall it, such as Sir Orfeo and the St Patrick’s Purgatory tradition. Novacich proposes that these texts (and images: the figures contain several startling hell mouths from medieval manuscripts), presenting the return of the past through people observed in or rescued from an underworld, show us both the power and the risk inherent in the act of looking back at the past and inviting it into the present. The final chapter explores the accounts of the Harrowing in the mystery plays, where Novacich identifies tensions between the Harrowing’s finality, as a moment when Jewish prophets and patriarchs are shuffled into place in a new Christian history, and the necessarily repetitious, rehearsed, and enduring nature of the plays themselves. Overall, the book depicts a culture which was keenly conscious both of the past and of the processes by which it might be ordered and preserved. The considerable range of both this book’s primary texts and its theoretical armory could invite objections: as an extreme example, about three centuries separate the thought of Hugh of St Victor (discussed pp. 59–66) and the manuscripts of the York and N-Town plays—in other words, roughly the same time as separates us from Daniel Defoe—so finding both being taken as grist in the same monograph, without intervening diachronic passages, might surprise. This range is really, however, the mark of an alternative approach which thrives on mirroring, resonance, and what Novacich calls ‘imagined adjacency’ (p. 163). The book does not attempt a conclusive or comprehensive study of archival thought in later medieval England, but rather presents an invigorating series of readings with much to offer other researchers. The book will be of interest to specialists in early English drama, but, precisely because of its much wider range, it will also have value for a broader readership: Novacich’s work on sacred...

Rereading the Ark Narrative: An Exilic Word of Hope and Warning

Abstract This article explains how 2 Sam 6:1-8 was redacted during the Babylonian exile in order to impart a theological message of hope and warning to the exilic community. This is demonstrated through an exploration of the similarities between 2 Sam 6:1-8 and Exod 32. The primary similarities include: (1) how Uzzah fulfills the same priestly role as Aaron; (2) how David serves as a symbolic “Moses figure” who guides the people and the ark to Jerusalem; and (3) how Yahweh broke out against Uzzah in anger, symbolic of how Yahweh allowed the Babylonian army to overthrow Jerusalem and take the people captive.

The Judahite Temple at Tel Moẓa near Jerusalem: The House of Obed-Edom?

The author discusses the identity of the recently discovered temple at Tel Moẓa. The key to the identification is the so-called ‘Ark Narrative’ (1 Sam 4:1b–7:1; 2 Sam 6:1–20a), the last part of which relates the journey of the ark from Kiriath-jearim (Deir el-ʿAzar) to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite, and from there to Jerusalem. The line of travel must have passed in the vicinity of the Moẓa temple. The author suggests identifying the latter as the temple (House) of Obed-Edom. He then analyzes some other Judahite cult places (bāmôt) mentioned in biblical texts, and the possible Philistine origin of some artefacts unearthed in the temple.

Selective Survival: When Worlds Collide (1951) as Ark Narrative

Selective Survival: When Worlds Collide (1951) as Ark Narrative

Les légendes fabriquées de David : variantes textuelles et tensions littéraires en 1 Samuel 16-18

The debate about the short version (LXXB) and the long version (MT) of 1 Samuel 17-18 has never been resolved. It can however have a solution by taking into account the Jewish Antiquities by Flavius Josephus as evidence like any other textual version: the LXXB would not be a full version for 1 S 17,12-32 and the MT, an expansive version for the following passages (17,41-18,30). Literary criticism of 1 S 16-19 helps us understand why there are two versions of the text and how the stories of David have been developed. The Greek translator was confronted with a problem of narrative coherence, since David is presented twice to King Saul. He wanted to restore consistency by removing the second presentation of David to Saul (1 S 17,12-32). This solution seemed more logical to him as the “second David” appears as a repetition if you read the text linearly. But, from the standpoint of literary analysis, the “first David” (1 S 16) is not coherent with the rest of the story (1 S 17,1-11). And, even if 1 S 17 has been the subject of corrective rereading, the whole story is relatively more homogeneous than the previous chapter. Literary criticism, applied to the first book of Samuel and conducted in the manner of an archaeological dig, reveals the accumulation of editorial strata, like archaeological strata within a mound. It is thus possible to envision how the legend of the young shepherd (1 S 17) was developed from the heroic exploits of Elhanan (2 S 21,19) to be linked up with the old legend of Saul - combined with the “Ark Narrative” -, and how the tradition of the musician David - comparable to the tradition of the wisdom of Solomon - was inserted between the two (1 S 16,14-23). The whole “legend of Saul and David” was finally framed by deuteronomistic editing that also introduced the multifaceted character of Samuel at every level of the overall story, for instance in 1 S 16,1-13. After becoming the king of a historically idealised kingdom formed by Israel in the north and by Judah in the south, David became the messianic king of a utopian Israel completely centred on Judea.

Human and Musical Sounds and Their Hearing Elsewhere as a Literary Device in the Biblical Narratives

AbstractThe biblical narrators utilize sounds of musical instruments and/or human voices being raised emotionally and their being heard someplace else as a literary tool and transitioning the reader from one place or group of people to another. The article discusses this literary tool as it appears in a number of narratives in the Hebrew Bible (namely, the Joseph Story, Ark Narrative, Throne Succession Narrative, Deuteronomistic and Chronistic histories, as well as the book of Ezra), and its effects.

Mouse Trap: A Text-Critical Problem with Rodents in the Ark Narrative

The book of 1 Samuel presents the interpreter with a number of textual difficulties, and where the Masoretic Text is problematic, scholars routinely turn to other versions (such as the Greek Septuagint or the Qumran material) for assistance. There are occasions, however, when the MT is intelligible enough, yet the LXX features a divergence, and the usual text-critical methods are hard pressed to explain the reason for divergence as a result of scribal error or lapse in transmission. One such example can be found in the so-called ‘Ark Narrative’ of 1 Samuel, where the Ark of the Covenant is captured by Philistines and taken to the temple of Dagon. When comparing the Hebrew and Greek texts of 1 Samuel 5-6, there is a discrepancy in the presentation of mice in the story. In the LXX mice are featured at an early point in the story, whereas in the MT mice are not even mentioned until the ark is poised to return to Israel. In this article I survey the scholarship on the issue and evaluate the differences in the two textual traditions, paying attention to the unique literary voices of each trajectory.

The First Book of Samuel (review)

Hebrew Studies 49 (2008) 352 Reviews pages for results from the study is a rather meager haul for an entire book of 200 pages. The methodological questions relating to use of the data from Mesopotamian , Egyptian, and Greek temples should have been debated. The positions taken and interpretations offered should have had more discussion in many cases. Each individual chapter should have had a concluding synthesis of what the chapter had demonstrated, and the final conclusion could have been of sufficient length and detail that it was clear what had been demonstrated by the book as a whole. There are many useful data here, but readers will have to analyze it for themselves. Lester L. Grabbe University of Hull Hull, England l.l.grabbe@hull.ac.uk THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. By David Toshio Tsumura. NICOT. Pp. xxii + 698. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007. Cloth, $50.00. David Tsumura has given us a modern philological and literary commentary which addresses a number of issues that are not normally part of scholarly discourse. A comprehensive introduction reviews modern theories of the history of the text (including the latest publications on the texts from the Judean Desert), recent literary-historical and literary-structural/semiotic (‘holistic’) scholarship, historiography, historical and religious background, and questions of grammar and syntax. The present reviewer was happy to note chapters on discourse analysis, including an expose of Longacre’s approach and a note of viewpoint (though not from a literary angle). A chapter on prose and poetry discusses the structure of parallelism, poetic prose, different forms of repetition and brachylogy. The keys include an index of Subjects, Modern Authors, Scriptural references, and Foreign words (Hebrew, Akkadian, Ugaritic, Phoenician/Punic, and other ancient languages). 1 Samuel is considered to serve two purposes: the establishment of the monarchy and the preparation of David for the role of the king, all through the prophetic authority of Samuel as God’s messenger. The author’s critical position is fairly (and rationally) conservative. The final redaction of the book of Samuel is attributed to the late tenth century, in view of the note on the Judean crown possession of Ziklag which seems to refer to the period before the campaign of Shishak, and in any case does not make sense after the Assyrian conquest of the entire Philistine area Hebrew Studies 49 (2008) 353 Reviews (1 Sam 27:6, pp. 11, 612). The author rejects the assumption of such blocks as a comprehensive “Ark Narrative” (1 Samuel 4–7; 2 Samuel 6) and the “History of David’s Rise” (1 Samuel 16–2 Samuel 5), and tends to prefer smaller frames, such as the “Ark Narrative” (1 Samuel 4–7only), embedded within the Samuel History (1 Samuel 1–7), followed by a “Story of Saul” (1 Sam 9:1–15:35), and a “Story of Saul and David” (1 Samuel 16–31). Of these blocks, the Ark Narrative is tentatively attributed to the pre-Davidic era, in view of the lack of allusions to a royal cult in Jerusalem (pp. 11–12). The Saul-David Story is considered to reflect the political tensions in the time of David’s rule, and is intrinsically linked to the “Story of King David” (2 Samuel 1–20), in particular by means of the report of Saul’s death and David’s elegy in the opening chapter (pp. 13–16). The framework of 2 Samuel 21–24 is viewed as an epilogue that provides a thematic closure for the David tales, and in which the tale of the offering at the threshing floor of Araunah marks the transition to the account of Solomon’s Temple building. The author regards Solomon’s accession narrative (1 Kings 1–2) as an interface of David and Solomon tales (pp. 67–68). In Tsumura’s view, the contrast between the alleged pro-monarchic and anti-monarchic passages has been exaggerated (pp. 11, 248), seeing that in biblical context the human king always is considered the regent/deputy of God, as the heavenly king (pp. 249, 275, 282; following to a certain extent M. Tsevat). Instead of an anti-monarchic division, the author locates the tale on the “Transition to...

A New Interpretation of the Term opalim (see pdf for image) in the Light of Recent Archaeological Finds from Philistia

In the light of recent archaeological finds from Iron Age Philistia and comparative evidence from Aegean and ancient Near Eastern cults, a new interpretation is suggested for the term opalim ( ), mentioned in the `ark narrative' (e.g. 1 Sam. 5.6; 6.5). Although most often interpreted as relating to `haemorrhoids' or the bubonic plague, it is suggested that this, in fact, is a term referring to an affliction of the Philistines' membra virile.

Ark-Eology: Shifting Emphases in ‘Ark Narrative’ Scholarship

A central character in 1 Samuel 4-6 is the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark is captured in battle, and subsequently wreaks havoc throughout the land of the Philistines until its subsequent return to the borders of Israel. Commonly referred to as the ‘Ark Narrative’ in scholarly literature, 1 Samuel 4-6 has often been viewed as a separate unit within the larger Deuteronomistic History. Although the Ark Narrative has been the subject of considerable scholarly interest, the methodological foci of such studies appear to have undergone a shift in more recent times. While earlier studies espoused a host of different critical approaches, such as tradition-historical, form-critical and redactional methodologies, it would seem that more recent studies have exhibited greater interest in literary appraisal and narrative criticism. This article presents a summary of recent research on the Ark Narrative of 1 Samuel 4-6 by 12 scholars: Robert Gordon, Lyle Eslinger, Peter Miscall, Walter Brueggemann, Yehoshua Gitay, Robert Polzin, J.P. Fokkelman, Bruce Birch, E.M.M. Eynikel, Graeme Auld, Barbara Green and Antony F. Campbell, SJ.

The Philistines in the Bible: A Late-Monarchic Perspective

The biblical references to the Philistines do not contain any memory of early Iron I events or cultural behaviour. A few texts, such as the Ark Narrative and stories reflecting the importance of Gath, seem to portray late Iron I and early Iron II memories. Most of the Philistine material, even if historically stratified and containing seeds of early tales as well as evidence for more than one redaction, is based on the geographical, historical and ideological background of late-monarchic times. Especially important are the allusions to Greek and west Anatolian mercenaries who served in the Saite army and were probably stationed, among other places, in Philistia. Chief among them were Carian, Ionian, Lydian and apparently also Cretan hoplites. This article highlights the following issues: the Philistine seranim, the pentapolis, Goliath’s armour, the Cherethites and the Pelethites and the origin of the Philistines.

Tendenz and Textual Criticism in 1 Samuel 2–10

A dominant feature of the stories in 1 Samuel 2–10 is the striking correspondence that they share with various Tetrateuchal accounts. Correspondences exist between the houses of Eli (1 Sam. 2) and Aaron (Lev. 10; Num. 25); the ark narrative (1 Sam. 4–6) and the plagues narrative (Exod. 5–12); as well as the rejection of divine kingship (1Sam. 8) and the rebellion concerning manna (Num. 11). Commentators have failed to note that many of the textual problems of the MT in 1 Samuel 2–10 surface precisely where these Deuteronomistic and Tetrateuchal accounts are parallel. Rather than being scribal errors, many textual problems in 1 Samuel 2–10 are thus the product of Dtr’s citation of, or allusion to, corresponding Tetrateuchal accounts.

‘Why Has Yahweh Defeated Us Today before the Philistines?’ The Question of the Ark Narrative

This study attempts to use the tools of literary criticism to bring a fresh approach to bear on the impasse which affected earlier studies on the Ark Narrative. Boundaries are established to determine the beginning, middle and end of the narrative and then an attempt is made to read that story. What emerges is a narrative which is concerned to explain, from start to finish, why the Israelites were defeated by a Philistine army, and an attempt to bring a challenge to the nation to respond appropriately to its holy God.

The Return of the Ark according to Josephus

Abstract 1 Sam 6:1–7:1 marks the third stage in the story of the ark's wanderings as related in the "Ark Narrative": after its capture by the Philistines (1 Samuel 4) and stay in Philistia (1 Samuel 5), the ark now returns to the land of Israel prior to its definitive transfer to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6). This article investigates Josephus's retelling of the biblical account of the ark's return in Ant. 6.7–18 comparing this both with the major witnesses to the text of 1 Sam 6:1–7:1 (MT, 4QSama, LXX, and Targum) as well as extrabiblical traditions about the episode. Specific questions addressed include: the text-form(s) of 1 Sam 6:1–7:1 available to Josephus, the rewriting techniques applied by him, and the distinctive features of his presentation of the ark's homecoming.