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.