Chapter 20 Where can I find the fifth part of glory? -3

After some painstaking research, I have finally found to my satisfaction that there is nothing particularly strong and striking that challenges the claim that "Ethiopia is the final resting place of the Ark of the Covenant."However, this is not the only research result I have come up with.I wrote in my notebook: Anyone familiar with the history of the Ark of the Covenant (from its creation at the foothills of Mount Sinai until its disappearance from Solomon's Temple) will not disagree with the view that the Ark was indeed a sacred object held in high regard by the Jewish nation.In fact, the Bible (where the Ark keeps appearing in chapters before Solomon) seems to have completely forgotten about the Ark after Solomon.

The disappearance of the Ark was officially acknowledged when the Second Temple was built.But, in the words of Professor Richard Elliott Friedman, the great mystery is whether the unreported cabinets were removed, destroyed, or hidden away. The Bible doesn't even make any comments, such as "the ark was lost later, and we don't know what happened to it", or "no one knows what happened to it until now".Considered by the Bible as the most important thing in the world, Suddenly disappeared in this story. Looking back at the evidence, I have to ask myself: why is this the case? Why did the compilers of the Old Testament allow the Ark to disappear from this sacred book—not at all in a big explosion, as one might imagine, but quietly?

I know that "King's Glory" does not provide a clear answer to this question.It says in chapter 62 that after Solomon's son Menelik abducted the ark from the temple and took it to Ethiopia, Solomon was very sad when he learned of it.However, when Solomon calmed down, he turned to the elders of Israel (who were also lamenting loudly about the loss of the Ark) and asked them to cease their lamentation: "Grieve not, for the uncircumcised cannot boast to us, and say: their glory has been taken from them, and God has forsaken them. Don't reveal anything to the Gentiles..."

Then... the elders of Israel replied, "Be assured, Your Majesty, and may my lord God also be assured! As for us, none of us will disobey your word, and we will not hear that the ark has been taken from us." Tell anyone." And so the elders of Israel and their Solomon workers made this covenant in the house of God—to this day. (The English translation of "The Glory of Kings", Oxford University Press, 1932 edition, p. 99, p. 100) That is to say, if the record in "King's Glory" is to be believed, Solomon had decided to cover up the fact that the Ark of the Covenant was missing.The Ark of the Covenant had been brought to Ethiopia while Solomon was alive, and all news of this tragic loss was suppressed.That's why the Bible doesn't say a word about it.

I think there are a number of reasons to consider this claim plausible.It can lead us to believe that the Jewish king did indeed take pains to keep the news of the disappearance of the Ark of the Covenant from common people.But at the same time, I think there are serious doubts about several other situations mentioned in "King's Glory", those problems are: the identity of the Queen of Sheba as Ethiopian, the legendary affair between her and Solomon, their son Menelik birth, Menelik's subsequent abduction of the Ark to Ethiopia, and hints that this happened in the 10th century BC:

1. The bold statement that the Queen of Sheba is an Ethiopian woman does not seem to be affirmed in The Glory of Kings.It is not absolutely impossible for her to be Ethiopian, for example: the historian Flavis Josephus said in his "Jewish Monuments" that the Queen of Sheba was "the queen of Egypt and Ethiopia".However, historical research has not proved that after she went to Jerusalem - the "Bible" said: "Many people followed her to Jerusalem, and there were camels carrying spices, precious stones and a lot of gold." (See "Old Testament "1 Kings" Chapter 10, Section 2) - went to the Abyssinian Plateau.

2.If there is little evidence linking the Queen of Sheba to Ethiopia, there is even less evidence that she had a son, Menelik.I've learned that Menelik, the so-called founder of the "Solomonian" dynasty in Ethiopia, is, according to historians, a figure of legend.In my two years of investigation, I have found nothing to the contrary that would convince me that these historians are wrong about this crucial insight. 3.Specifically, in the 10th century BC, there may have been a centralized kingdom described in "King's Glory" in the mountains of Abyssinia, and its culture was very advanced. Sir E. A. Wallis Butch noted: "The natives of what we now call Abyssinia were barbaric in the reign of King Solomon." This is an orthodox view, my Research has not found anything to disprove this either.

4.Among the materials that question the records of "King's Glory", the most deadly is the evidence I collected in Ethiopia.Of the many legends I have heard in that country, the purest and most convincing ones so far show that the Ark was first brought to Lake Tana, and was hidden on the island of Tana Cheeks in the lake.The monk I interviewed on the island, Memir Fiseha (see Chapter 9 of this book), once told me that the Ark of the Covenant had been hidden on the island for 800 years. Sent to the city of Axum.Ethiopia converted to Christianity around AD 330, so this means that the strong folklore preserved on Tana Cheeks is that the Ark of the Covenant must have arrived in Ethiopia around AD 470 - in other words In other words, about 500 years after Solomon, Menelik and the Queen of Sheba.

My doubts about the narrative of "King's Glory" are of course more than the above.There are also some records in it that really puzzle me.For example, here's a practical question: How on earth did Menelik and his entourage manage to move something as heavy as the Ark of the Covenant out of Solomon's Temple without attracting the attention of the Levites who were eager to guard the inner sanctuary? I still have some reservations about the account of "King's Glory", which, together with the questions raised above, force me to agree with academic experts: "King's Glory" is indeed a document worthy of attention. However, in order to make the narrative lively and interesting, its author has mixed many embellishments in it.

Still, that doesn't make me dismiss this great epic outright.On the contrary, I feel that, like so many other legends, it is quite possible that the surface structure of "King's Glory", which is carefully fabricated, can be based on a solid foundation of historical fact.Anyway, reluctantly ruling out Solomon's romantic affair with the Queen of Sheba, and the cheeky suggestion that their son Menelik stole the Ark of the Covenant from the Temple, I don't see why it couldn't be concluded that It concluded that the Ark of the Covenant might have been brought to Ethiopia by other means, thus creating a mystery to which The Glory of Kings, written much later, had to respond in a particularly original and colorful way. Explanation.

In fact, I am quite satisfied with one conclusion, that is: Ethiopia's social and cultural background itself has strongly supported the statement that "Ethiopia is the final place where the Ark of the Covenant will be placed".I also now know that no other country or region has a stronger claim than this, so I am more convinced than before that the Ark of the Covenant is indeed in Ethiopia. Even so, the remaining pieces of the jigsaw puzzle have not returned to their original positions.If the Queen of Sheba was not Solomon's lover, and if she never bore Solomon a son named Menelik, as the legend says, then who brought the Ark of the Covenant to Ethiopia?When and under what circumstances did you bring it? "I think that woman argues too much..." As I attempted to answer these questions, the first thing that came to mind in my mind was the only admissible suggestion in The Glory of Kings that the disappearance of the Ark from the cella might have been the concealment of a silent conspiracy which The participants were the elite of the priesthood and King Solomon.But if the king wasn't Solomon, who was it? Part of what is meant by the phrase "conceal the truth" is, of course, that it should be difficult for others to see through.I do not, therefore, expect to find easily the kind of evidence I am gathering from the Old Testament. For more than 2,000 years this great and complex book has guarded these secrets of its own, so there is no reason to suppose that it will reveal them to me so easily now. I started typing every reference to the Ark in the Bible.Even with the best academic sources on the subject at hand, finding them all can be daunting.After the work was completed, there were as many as 50 pages of materials sorted out in front of me.Only the last page contains an account of the period after Solomon's death, which both shocked and made sense to me.All other sources relate only to the time of the Ark's wanderings in the wilderness, the occupation of the Promised Land by the Israelites, the reign of King David, and the reign of King Solomon himself. As I've come to realize, the Bible contains a vast amount of material from authors of various schools over the centuries.I know that many of the materials related to the Ark are very old, while others are more recent. For example, the material in the Old Testament 1 Kings was written before the reign of King Josiah (640-609 BC).That said, the 1 Kings 8 account of the placement of the Ark into Solomon's Temple, while no doubt based on ancient oral and written traditions, was written by monks who lived long after that event. This is exactly the case with the relevant materials in the "Old Testament Deuteronomy", because it is also a relatively recent document, and its age only belongs to the reign of King Josiah.So, if the Ark of the Covenant had been moved out of the inner sanctum before the destruction of Solomon's Temple in 587 BC, then I think it's possible to find clues in Shahnameh and Deuteronomy that conceal this fact —if they will be found sooner or later, because the editors of these books will have the opportunity to falsify the facts to create the impression they crave that the "glory" has not left Israel. In my perusal of the Bible, I came across a passage in 1 Kings 8 that seemed to have a different tone and style from the rest of the scriptures, and was inconsistent with the rest of the description of the grand celebration of the placing of the ark into the inner sanctum An astonishing conflict formed.The passage reads as follows: The priests carried the ark of the LORD into the inner sanctuary, the Holy of Holies, and placed it between under the wings of the cherubim.The cherubim spread their wings over the ark, covering the covenant the chest and the poles for the chest.The pole was so long that its head was visible in the sanctuary before the inner sanctuary, But it cannot be seen outside the stock market, and it is still there until now. (Section 68) I do not understand why the author of this passage thought it necessary to emphasize that when he wrote the book he could still see the poles for the ark of the covenant sticking out of the cella?Unless the Ark of the Covenant was not actually in the Temple when he wrote it (authorities put it around 610 B.C.), what would his words mean? There is, I think, an undertone in this oddly defensive tone, suggesting that some guilty person sometimes makes a strong statement to profess his innocence and to conceal the truth.In conclusion, like the famous woman in Shakespeare's Hamlet, the author of 1 Kings 8 "argues too much" and instead arouses my suspicions (cf. Hamlet, Act 3, 2 In line 233 of the scene, Hamlet's queen mother said when commenting on the actor's play within the play: "I think that woman argues too much..."——Translator's Note). I was delighted to discover that I am not alone in having this intuition. In 1928, Julian Morgenstern, a leading scholar of the Bible, also expressed his shock at the words "still there until now".In a well-quoted paper published in the Annals of the Hebrew Union College, he concluded that the author of this passage must have intended, he thought, to convince the reader that the poles of the Ark of the Covenant (and therefore The Ark of the Covenant itself) was in the inner sanctum of the Temple, although it was invisible to most, even though it was invisible to no one except the High Priest, who only entered the To the cella... (the author) seems to have felt compelled to emphasize in this way that the ark was still in the temple, which shows that he had to refute a popular and persistent doubt ), and that suspicion may well be well founded. And that's not all, verse 9 of the same chapter of the Book of Kings says: There were only two tablets of stone in the ark, which Moses put on Mount Horeb when the LORD made a covenant with the Israelites after they left the land of Egypt.Other than that, there is nothing else.The lithograph is still there today. (Quoted from the English version of the Jerusalem Bible) "Deuteronomy" was written in the same year as "Kings", and there are almost the same words in it-Moses put the two stone commandment tablets into the ark of the covenant, "I (this refers to Moses-translator's note) turned and went down the mountain, Put this tablet in the chest that I made, and it is still there." (Deuteronomy Chapter 10 Section 5) Analyzing these words, Morgenstern says they "must have been inserted into the text for a specific purpose."He then quotes the original Hebrew text of the book and concludes that this particular purpose can only be In the face of doubt or doubt, it is almost as if to offer an immediate positive confirmation that the Ten Commandments were still in the Ark when the author wrote these. Deuteronomy and 1 Kings certainly deal with different periods of Israelite history, but the crucial point (and this is so important that it bears repeating) is that both books were written at the same time. a period.I have already stated that that period was the reign of King Josiah, from 640 B.C. to 609 B.C. Curious, I turned to the typescript that listed all the passages in the Bible that dealt with the ark.In all the Old Testament, as I recall, very little is said about the period after Solomon's death.Now I find that there are actually only two passages in it: one written during the reign of King Josiah and the other quoting from Josiah himself, and both appear on the last page of my document. Josiah and Jeremiah I had already met Josiah in previous research.At the time, I was examining ancient remains of the religious practices of Ethiopian black Jews.I learned that it was during the reign of Josiah that the practice of burnt offerings was finally concentrated only in Jerusalem and was banned everywhere else (see Chapter 6 of this book).The Farasha themselves still perform burnt offerings in Ethiopia (there are altars in all their villages), so I wrote a conclusion in my notebook: When the ancestors of the Falasha came to Judaism, local burnt offerings were still accepted in places far from the centralized national sanctuaries.This could mean that the Falashas converted to Judaism before the birth of King Josiah, which was no later than the seventh century BC. My research is now entering areas that I would never have dreamed of when I wrote these words in 1989.Now I'm dealing with a particularly interesting set of circumstances.So, sitting in my hotel room in Jerusalem in October 1990, I opened my notebook again and made the following bullet points: —There are indications in Deuteronomy and 1 Kings that their authors endeavored to convince the people that the Ark was still in the Temple.This appears to be an attempt to cover up the fact that the Ark was no longer in the Temple. —The relevant passages were all written during the reign of King Josiah. ——According to this, I think that the Ark of the Covenant may have been removed from the temple during the reign of King Josiah; however, a more likely situation is that the disappearance of the Ark was discovered at that time , but it was missing earlier.why?Because Josiah was an ardent reformer who emphasized the importance of the temple in Jerusalem above all else; and because the "raison d'être" of Solomon's temple was to be "the house where the ark of the Lord was kept."It is inconceivable that such a monarch would allow the ark to be carried out of the inner sanctum, because the ark is the highest symbol of Judaism, the symbol and seal of Jehovah's presence on earth.Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the Ark must have been secretly removed from the Temple before Josiah became king (that is, before 640 BC). —The religious practices of the Falashas included local burnt offerings, and this practice was finally outlawed only in the reign of Josiah.On the basis of this and other sources, I thought for a time that the ancestors of the Falasha must have immigrated into Ethiopia before 640 B.C. —Is it really impossible for the above cases to be related to each other? This line of evidence seems convincing: the Ark was removed from the Temple before 640 BC; the ancestors of the Farasha moved into Ethiopia before 640 BC; Is it unreasonable to assume that cabinets were brought to Ethiopia? This assumption is so perfectly logical that it astounds me.However, it does not determine when the Farasha emigration from Jerusalem occurred before 640 BC.Nor does it completely rule out the possibility that the Ark may have also been removed from the Temple during Josiah's reign.We know that this king was passionate about religious integrity and tradition, and considering this, it was indeed a great risk to remove the Ark from the Temple during his reign. Nevertheless, we have to consider this possibility, since I already know (see the previous chapter of this book) that some Jewish legends say that the king had a valid motive for removing the ark.Those legends say that, towards the end of his reign, King Josiah, having foreseen the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians, "hid the ark and all its appendages, lest they should fall into the hands of their enemies and be desecrated."Not only that, but the legend says that he (perhaps by some miraculous means) hid the Ark "in its own place". Now I am as content as I was before that the Ark of the Covenant was not buried on the Temple Mount, nor anywhere else in the Holy City of Jerusalem.Still, I had to ask myself: is this possible?Did Josiah really foresee the fate of the temple and take measures to protect the ark? I studied this possibility carefully, but came to the conclusion that unless the Jewish king really had an extraordinary gift for foreknowledge, there was no way he could have known in advance the events that would take place between 598 and 587 BC.He died in 609 BC, and five years later Nebuchadnezzar, the chief culprit in the destruction of Jerusalem, succeeded to the throne of Babylon.Moreover, Nebuchadnezzar's father, King Nabopolassar, had little interest in using troops against Israel, and concentrated his energies on the wars against Assyria and Egypt. Therefore, the historical background of Josiah's dynasty does not support the statement that "it may be that Josiah hid the ark".But by far the most noteworthy is the last reference to the Ark in the Old Testament.That's what I found in a passage in 2 Chronicles, describing Josiah's efforts to restore the traditional values ​​of temple worship: Josiah removed all the abominations from all parts of Israel...and appointed priests to perform their duties...and he said to the Levites, who were holy to the LORD, who taught the children of Israel, "You shall consecrate the ark of the covenant And put it in the temple built by Solomon, son of David king of Israel, and he no longer had to carry it on his shoulders." (Chapter 34, verse 33; Chapter 35, verses 2, 3) It was immediately apparent to me that these verses, especially Josiah's words to the Levites, were crucial to my investigation.why?Quite simply, because if the ark had been in the temple, there would have been no need for Josiah to have said that.Two inescapable conclusions can be drawn from this: first, Josiah himself did not order the ark to be removed from the temple, because he clearly thought that the traditional ark bearers (Levites) were carrying the ark; , it is now certain that the date when the Ark was removed from the Temple was before Josiah uttered these words. So, when did he say those words?Fortunately, "2 Chronicles" provides a very clear answer to this question: "Josiah reigned eighteen years" (Chapter 35, Section 19).In other words, in 622 BC.However, Chronicles does not mention how the Levites carried out the king's orders. One might think that the rest of Chronicles must be followed by a graphic description of the ritual of restoring the Ark to the Temple, but this is far from the case, since neither Chronicles nor the rest of the Bible Mention how the Levites carried out this strange command of Josiah.On the contrary, those who heard Josiah's words were obviously either deaf or thought the order could not be carried out. I have already said that in terms of chronological order, this sentence of Josiah is the last reference to the ark in the entire Old Testament.Now, I go to the second-to-last passage in the Old Testament that mentions the ark.This passage appears in the form of a prophet addressing the people of Jerusalem in a chapter of The Book of Jeremiah written by Jeremiah himself around 626 BC: The LORD said: "When you have multiplied in the land, no one will say where is the Ark of the LORD? No one will think about it, remember it, or feel its lack, nor make it any more. When that time comes, people will call Jerusalem For the throne of the LORD, all the nations will come to Jerusalem, and gather in the place where the LORD has made his name; and they will no longer follow their own wicked hearts." (Chapter 3, verses 16, 17, Jerusalem Bible Version) I know that some Jewish legends (and "Apocrypha Maccabees") say that Jeremiah, like Josiah, also participated in hiding the ark (it is said that he hid the ark in Mount Nebo before the destruction of Jerusalem) .However, compared with those legends and "The Maccabees", the historical value of the passage quoted above is much higher, because this passage is a real person (that is, Jeremiah himself) in a known Time speaks out.More than that, judging from what I know of the context, there can be no doubt about the meaning of this passage or its wider implications.To put it bluntly, the context of these passages reinforces the impression given by Jeremiah's statements that the Ark was no longer in the Temple by 622 B.C.—they also push the date of the Ark's disappearance farther back. Later than 626 BC. I say no later than 626 B.C. because, as I said earlier, that part of Jeremiah's prophecy was spoken in that year.Yet one thing is already clear: Jeremiah spoke this prophecy, at least in part, in response to the excruciating anguish over the disappearance of the ark, a sentiment that was then prevalent and probably long-established.For this reason alone it is possible to explain those words in the scriptures: "When you have multiplied in your land, no one will say where the ark of the Lord is?" Obviously, if people had not said this in 626 BC words, and it was a period of time before Jeremiah said these words, then Jeremiah did not need to say these words. After I made this judgment, I was delighted to find that it was fully supported by a world-class expert on Bible studies, that scholar is Professor Menaheim Harlan of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.In his authoritative treatise, Temples and Priesthood in Ancient Israel, this learned scholar examines the above statement and comes to the following conclusions: The words immediately follow the words of comfort and themselves contain a message of comfort and mercy.What the Prophet here promises is that in the good days to come there will be no need for the Ark—the implication being that the absence of the Ark will no longer continue to cause sorrow.If the ark was still in the temple at that time, these words would naturally be meaningless. Based on the above analysis, I think it is safe to draw a conclusion: If I want to determine the exact date of the disappearance of the Ark, I must look back to the period before 626 BC.Not only that, but I think it would be fruitless to spend all of our time carefully studying the early years of Josiah's reign, that is, the period from 626 B.C. to 640 B.C. I already know that in 622 B.C. the king attempted to return the Ark to the Temple but was unable to do so, so it is highly unlikely that he was the one who removed the Ark from the Temple.It must be his successors who are responsible for the disappearance of the Ark.In fact, after Solomon placed the ark in the inner sanctum in 955 BC, 15 kings ruled over Jerusalem, any of whom could have removed the ark from the temple. look up The period I am currently examining covers a total of 315 years, starting in 955 B.C. and ending with the accession of Josiah in 640 B.C.During this period, Jerusalem and Solomon's Temple were the centers of an extremely complex series of events.Although these events are described in detail in the Bible, none of them mention the Ark of the Covenant—as I said before, between King Solomon and King Josiah, this sacred object has been silenced. A thick curtain covered it. To find out just how thick this ancient veil was, I turned to a modern research tool.In Jerusalem, on the computer on the table in my hotel room, there is an electronic CD-ROM of the King James Bible, which I brought from England.I knew it would be useless to search for the period I was interested in using a search program for "Ark", "Ark of the Covenant", "Ark of God", "Ark of the Holy", or any similar title, because That time will not come. But I do have another way, and that is to look up phrases that are often associated with the ark in earlier passages of the Bible, and the records of the suffering that the ark often causes . In order to find the suffering caused by the ark of the covenant, I typed the word "leprosy" in the program, because in Chapter 12 of "Numbers of the Old Testament", Miriam criticized the authority of Moses, and Moses used the ark of the covenant Her powers made her "leprosy" as punishment.When searching for phrases, I typed the phrase "between the cherubim (that is, winged angels)", because the "Bible" says that the God of the Israelites lived between the two "cherubim" on the golden cover of the ark of the covenant. Between", also because before the reign of King Solomon, this phrase formula was always used in conjunction with the ark of the covenant, and never used otherwise. I look up "leprosy" first.The electronic version of the "Bible" naturally found it in Chapter 12 of the "Old Testament: Numbers", where it talked about Miriam's experience.Since then, this word has only appeared twice in the entire Bible: once in the "Old Testament 2 Kings", the scriptures in it obviously have nothing to do with the ark, and only say that the city gate of Samaria in northern Israel sat "Four lepers" (chapter 7, verse 3); another time is in "Old Testament 2 Chronicles", and the passage related to this word is indeed related to the ark of the covenant. That passage, in Chapter 26 of 2 Chronicles, describes how King Uzziah (who ruled Jerusalem from 781 B.C. to 740 B.C.) "offended the LORD his God, burn incense on the altar" (verse 16).The high priest Azariah and some priests immediately followed Uzziah into the temple, stood at the door of the inner sanctum, and advised him not to do this reading of God: Then Uzziah became angry, and took the censer in his hand to burn incense. When he was angry with the priests, leprosy suddenly came from his forehead in the presence of all the priests at the altar of incense in the house of the LORD. (Section 19) It appears that Uzziah did not actually enter the cella (the text is somewhat vague about this), but he did stand quite close to the cella.Besides, he was carrying a metal censer, which was always dangerous in such close proximity to the Ark, since two of Aaron's sons had been covenanted at the foot of Mount Sinai for "offering a few fires before the LORD." Ark kill (see "Old Testament Leviticus" Chapter 10, Sections 1 and 2). From this, therefore, I feel that there is at least one seemingly well-documented case which would lead me to conclude that the "leprosy" on Uzziah's forehead was caused by his exposure to the Ark of the Covenant.Then I found out that there are others who think so too. An illustration from an English-language Bible of the 18th century clearly shows the hapless king standing beside the Ark of the Covenant at the moment of his punishment (this illustration is reproduced in this book, see Fig. 51).I wrote in my notebook: If the king's ailments were caused by the ark, then this would mean that the ark was still in the cella in 740 BC (the year Uzziah's dynasty ended because of what happened to him).This greatly narrows the scope of the investigation, since it amounts to saying that the disappearance of the Ark occurred during the century between this date and the beginning of Josiah's dynasty, that is, sometime between 740 and 640 B.C. a day. Of course I am well aware that the Uzziah incident is of little value as historical evidence.While it's a fascinating hint (call it a clue, if you will), it must never be concluded from it that "the Ark of the Covenant must have been in the Temple in 740 BC".To prove that this is actually the case, I need some kind of stronger evidence.Turns out, looking up the phrase "among the cherubim" I found just the kind of evidence I needed. As mentioned earlier, in the passages of the Bible that record the period before the Solomon dynasty, this phrase is always used exclusively in conjunction with the ark of the covenant, and has no other usage.So, although close attention must be paid to the context, I feel that any biblical passage that uses the phrase again after the Bible records that the Ark of the Covenant was placed in the Temple in 955 B.C. The times (or times) when the Ark was still in the cella. So I used a computer program to look up the phrase "among the cherubim."Seconds later I learned that the phrase was only quoted seven times in the Bible after Solomon's reign. Two of these citations are in Psalms 80, verse 1, and 99, verse 1, respectively, and apparently refer to the winged angel statue on the Ark of the Covenant.Unfortunately, it is impossible to date the writing of these poems at all.It is highly unlikely that they were written before the reign of Solomon, and scholarship generally agrees that the related psalms were probably written "early dynastic times", that is, during Solomon's lifetime or within a century of his death. I also found three occurrences of the phrase "among the cherubim" in The book of Ezakiel. The book of Ezekiel was written in 593 BC, and none of the phrases used in it are relevant to my investigation, because: First, the "cherubim" here are Ezekiel sitting in his own house as seen in (see chapter 8, verses 1-3); second, they are described as having "four faces" and "four wings" (see chapter 10, verse 21), and the ark of the covenant The cherubim each have a face and two wings; third, they are obviously huge "living creatures" (see chapter 10, verses 15 and 20), rather than relatively small fine gold statues, which Located at the ends of the "mercy seat" (cover) of the Ark, face to face.At the end of Ezekiel's vision, the cherubim were indeed "spreading their wings and rising from the ground before my eyes...the sound of the wings of the cherubim was heard in the outer court like the voice of Almighty God" (ch. 10, p. 19 and 5). Therefore, when I searched for relevant scriptures to prove that the Ark was constantly appearing at certain times, the cherubim mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel had nothing to do with the Ark and could be safely ignored.In this way, the phrase "among the cherubim" that I looked up on the computer now only has two possible uses for me.These two places appear in the 37th verse 16 of the "Old Testament Isaiah" and the 19th verse 15 of the "Old Testament 2 Kings" respectively.These two places refer to the same event, both are extremely important, and both are unmistakably connected with the Ark of the Covenant—only the name Ark of the Covenant is not mentioned.Here are the two passages (Isaiah is the older one): Hezekiah ... went up to the house of the LORD ... and he prayed to the LORD, saying, "O LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, who sits between the two cherubim, you, and you only, are the God of all the nations of the earth... "(Isaiah Chapter 37 Verses 14-16) 希西家……就上耶和华的殿……向耶和华祷告说："坐在二基路伯之间耶和华以色列的神啊，你是天下万国的神……（《列王纪下》第19章第14、15节） 读者想必已经看到，这两段经文不但说的是同一个事件，而且使用了几乎一样的语言。实际上，《列王纪》的说法是在逐字重复《以赛亚书》上的话。 学者们认为，这些经文都是以赛亚本人所写的。对这位著名先知的生平、时代及活动，我们已经知道得很多，因此，我可以相当准确地认定他这番叙述的日期，他叙述的是希西家向"坐在二基路伯之间"的"耶和华以色列的神"的祷告。 以赛亚于公元前740年被召入宫，作预言府主管（见《耶路撒冷圣经》所附年表——作者注）。就在这一年，乌西雅国王因得了大麻疯而死（见《以赛亚书》第6章第1节）。他在预言府效力的时期贯穿了约珊国王（Jotham）、阿兹国王（Ahaz）和希西家国王的在位期（分别是公元前740-736年、公元前737-716年和公元前716-687年）。 有个事实和我的调查有关，并具有关键性的重大意义，学者们对它的看法也完全一致，那就是：我的电脑从中查找出"基路伯之间"这个短语的那段经文，是以赛亚在公元前701年所写的。那一年，亚述国王西拿基立（Sennachetib）曾试图攻占耶路撒冷，但没有成功（见对·L·克劳斯等编：《牛津基督教大辞典》第715页及《犹太教百科全书》第369页）。 实际上，犹太国王希西家正是直接听从了以赛亚的忠告，才拒绝把耶路撒冷交给亚述人的（参见《以赛亚书》第37章第6、7节）。亚述王西拿基立的反应是送来一封恐吓信，威胁要杀死犹太的百姓，毁灭它的城池。 希西家国王的确拿着这封信，"就上耶和华的殿，将书信在耶和华面前展开……向耶和华祷告说：坐在二基路伯之间万军之耶和华以色列的神啊，你，惟有你，是天下万国的神……"（见《以赛亚书》第37章第1416节）希西家接着祷告说： 耶和华啊，求你侧耳而听；耶和华啊，求你睁眼而看。 要听西拿基立的一切话，他是打发使者来辱骂永生神的。耶和华啊，亚述诸王果然使列国和列国之地变为荒凉……耶和华我们的神啊，现在求你救我们脱离亚述王的手，使天下万国都知道惟有你是耶和华。（第37章第17、18、20节） A miracle happened!耶和华帮助了希西家国王，首先派他的先知以赛亚去见希西家，告诉这位国王说： "……耶和华论亚述王如此说：他必不得来到这城，也不在这里射箭，不得拿盾牌到城前，也不筑垒攻城。"（第 37章第33、35节） 耶和华果然兑现了他的诺言。就在当夜，耶和华的使者出去，在亚述营中杀了十八万五千人。清早有人起来一看，都是死尸了。亚述王西拿基立就拔营回去，住在尼尼微。（第37章第36、37节） 这些事件的历史真实性是无可置疑的：亚述人确实在公元前701年包围了耶路撒冷，但后来突然拔营逃走了（参见P·约翰逊：《犹太史》，1988年伦敦版，第73页）。学者们认为这是因为亚述人突然感染了一场淋巴腺鼠疫（即黑死病）。但奇怪的是，没有任何证据表明耶路撒冷城里有什么人也感染了这种极易传染的疾病。 因此，根据目前所了解的全部有关背景情况，我不禁想到：亚述王西拿基立的这次溃败，会不会和约柜有关呢？亚述人遭到的那场大规模杀戮，听上去很像某种"奇迹"，而约柜以前经常会表演这种"奇迹"。不过，这只是我自己的一种直觉，一种预感。这个记载并不能证明公元前701年约柜还在圣殿里。真正能够确证这一点的，是以赛亚提出的那些极为雄辩的证言，他说希西家国王曾向"坐在二基路伯之间的耶和华以色列的神"求救。 不仅如此，这段话所在的那一章还不仅说希西家国王拿着亚述王的恐吓信，而且说他"将书信在耶和华面前展开"。 这个情景使人联想到：在此前的时代，"所罗门……回到耶路撒冷，站在耶和华的约柜前，献燔祭和平安祭。"（《列王纪上》第3章第15节） 这个情景也使人联想到：在此前的时代，"大卫和以色列的全家在耶和华面前，用松木制造的各样乐器和琴、瑟、鼓、钹、锣作乐跳舞。"（《撒母耳记下》第6章第5节） 这个情景还使人联想到：在此前的时代，"耶和华将利未支派分别出来，抬耶和华的约柜，又侍立在耶和华面前侍奉他，奉他的名祝福。"（《申命记》第10章第8节） 我们不妨把这个曲折复杂的故事精简到极短：希西家国王在"耶和华面前"展开了亚述王的恐吓信，然后向"坐在二基路伯之间的耶和华以色列的神"祷告。这个情节已经确证了一点：当时约柜还在圣殿的内殿中。对这段经文只能做这样的解释。它有效地证实了一个情况：所罗门王朝之后很长一段时期内，约柜一直在圣殿里。它也给《国王的光荣》里的一个说法以致命的打击，那个说法就是：门涅利克偷走约柜时所罗门王还活在世上。 对这个发现，我不知道是应该感到喜悦，还是应该感到悲哀。每当一个美丽的神话被证明不足为信的时候，我总是会感到几分沮丧。我虽然仍旧希望能证实《国王的光荣》的核心内容，即约柜确实被带到了埃塞俄比亚（尽管当然不是门涅利克所为），但我却丝毫不知道该如何去证实它。 因此，我相当沮丧地回头去研究大量的研究论文和书籍——我在耶路撒冷的饭店客房里，堆满了这些文件和书籍。我想，我的考察已经有了很大进展，这毕竟是个好消息。我已经证实：约西亚国王在位（开始于公元前640年）及其之后的时期里，约柜被移出了圣殿。不仅如此，我现在还弄清了一点：公元前701年时，约柜还在圣殿的内殿中（希西家国王就是在那一年向耶和华祷告求救的）。因此，约柜的失踪只能发生在这两个日期之间的61年当中。即使这61年也还能进一步缩小范围。What is the reason?因为希西家国王本人显然不会允许任何人从内殿中抬走约柜（他曾在约柜前祷告，并且发现他的祷告很灵验）。 希西家国王死于公元前687年，而约西亚国王于公元前640年即位。他们之间只经历了两位国王：玛拿西国王（Manasseh，公元前687-642年在位）和亚扪国王（Amon，公元前642-640年在位）。因此，结论就是：约柜的失踪必定发生在这两位国王在位期间。 玛拿西国王的罪 我又一次深入研读《圣经》，很快就发现：使约柜消失的罪魁祸首只能是玛拿西国王。《圣经》的作者们毫不留情地对这位国王严加申斥，因为： 玛拿西行耶和华眼中看为恶的事，效法……外邦人所行可憎的事……又为巴力（Baal，以色列人到迦南以前当地人供奉的本地神——译者注）筑坛……且敬拜侍奉天上的万象……他在耶和华殿宇个……为天上的万象筑坛，并使他的儿子经火……用法术，并与克及行巫术的交好（中文《圣经》此处为"立交鬼的和行巫术的"——译者注），多行耶和华眼中看为恶的事，惹动他的怒气，又在殿内雕了神树偶像（中文《圣经》为"又在殿内雕刻的亚合拉像"，亚舍拉为异教女神——译者注）。耶和华曾对大卫和他的儿子所罗门说："我在以色列众支派中所选择的耶路撒冷和这殿，必立我的名，直到永远。"（参见《列王纪下》第21章第2-7节） 玛拿西做的这个"神树偶像"（graven image of the grove）到底是什么呢？他把它放在圣殿里的什么地方了呢？ 为了寻找第一个问题的答案，我暂时放下了《英王詹姆斯钦定本圣经》（以上经文就引自它），去翻阅比较现代的《耶路撒冷圣经》，从中得知：这个"神树偶像"其实是"亚舍拉像"，她是生活在树上的一个异教神。而第二个问题的答案就在它自身：耶和华所说的"必立我的名，直到永远"的殿宇就是圣殿的内殿（即debir），就是所罗门设计的那个秘密的金室，其目的是"安放耶和华的约柜"。 这些新发现的意义非常重大。玛拿西"行耶和华眼中看为恶的事"，还把异教的偶像引进了圣殿的内殿。可以想见，他为了实施这个向异教信仰的重大倒退，很可能同意把约柜移出圣殿，因为约柜是耶和华在地球显身的标志和印玺，是犹太教这种极为严格的一神教的最高象征。但同时，这位叛教的国王也不大可能真的毁掉约柜。相反，由于他极度迷恋法术和巫术，他很可能认为毁掉约柜是个最愚蠢的举动。因此，最可能出现的情况就是：他可能先命令利未人从圣殿里抬走约柜，再把他的"亚舍拉"雕像放进内殿里。 利未人听到玛拿西的这道命令，很可能不仅感到高兴，甚至会感到庆幸，因为他们是耶和华的忠实仆人，为了防止约柜遭到亵渎，他们会竭尽全力，他们把约柜视为他们上帝的"脚凳"（参见《旧约·历代志上》第28章第2节）。把约柜和一个异教神雕像并列放在内殿里，利未人几乎想象不出比这更读神的做法了。他们都是祭司，没有能力起兵战胜玛拿西这样强大的君主。因此，他们的最佳对策就是顺应不可避免的事变，把约柜抬到一个安全的地方去。 《圣经》里甚至有迹象表明：约柜被强制性地移出圣殿，可能是某种针对这位国王的大规模群众抗议造成的结果——他残酷地镇压了这次抗议。这当然只是我自己的一种猜测，但这个假定毕竟有助于解释《圣经》上对玛拿西的一个说法，即他"又流许多无辜人的血，充满了耶路撒冷，从这边直到那边"（见《列王纪下》第21章第16节）。 无论是怎样，有一点已经很清楚：玛拿西在他统治的末期已经被看作一个品行恶劣、精神失常、性情怪异者了。公元前642年，他的儿子亚扪继承了他的王位，而约西亚又在公元前640年继承了亚扪的王位。约西亚国王是一位热情的改革家，他恢复了对耶和华的传统崇拜，以此而闻名——也受到了《圣经》作者们的爱戴。 亚扪国王的在位期为什么如此短暂呢？《圣经》解释说，因为亚扪行耶和华眼中看为恶的事，与他父亲玛拿西所行的一样。行他父亲一切所行的，敬奉他父亲所敬奉的偶像…… 亚扪王的臣仆背叛他，在宫里杀了他。但国民杀了那些背叛亚扪王的人，立他儿子约西亚接续他作王。（《列王纪下》第对章第20-24节） 然而，"约西亚登基的时候年八岁"（《列王纪下》第22章第1节）。据《圣经》的记载，约西亚在八岁时就已经显露出"寻求他祖大卫的神"的迹象（《历代志下》第34章第3节）。实际上，一直到这位年轻国王登基了12年后，他才开始激烈地否定玛拿西和亚扪的罪恶。当时，约西亚王已经20岁了。他发动了一场运动，以"洁净犹太和耶路撒冷……除掉……雕刻的像和铸造的像"（《历代志下》第34章第3节）。 又从耶和华殿里，将神树偶像搬到耶路撒冷外汉沦溪（Kidrom）边焚烧，打碎成灰，将灰撒在平民的坎上。（《列王纪下》第23章第6节，《耶路撒冷圣经》译本） 这实在是剧烈的拨乱反正！不仅如此，这场运动还有确切的日期可查：公元前628年（即约西亚王12年），玛拿西塑的那座令人厌恶的偶像，终于被连根清除出了圣殿的内殿。然而，约柜却自然没有被拿回来，无法去替代那个偶像的位置。 我已经知道，两年之后，耶利米向民众宣布预言，以缓解他们对约柜失踪产生的悲哀。耶利米预言说，人们不再问"耶和华的约柜在哪里"的一天终将到来，到那个时候，人们将不再觉得缺少了约柜，也将不再考虑重新制造一个约柜了。 四年以后，约西亚国王本人吩咐利未人把约柜抬回圣殿里，但几乎没抱什么指望，他还说："不必再用肩扛抬（约柜）。"这是在公元前622年，即他在位的第18年；而恰恰在同一年，这位国王完成了全国长期的清洗运动之后，"回到耶路撒冷"，下令修理耶和华他神的殿"（见《历代志下》第34章第7-8节），这也绝不是巧合。 可想而知，修理工作是由"木匠、工人和瓦匠"完成的（见《列王纪下》第22章第6节）。然而，这里却有个巨大的奥秘，那就是：利未人没有办法执行约西亚国王的命令，即"将圣约柜安放在以色列王大卫儿子所罗门建造的殿里"。我现在越来越能断定，这个奥秘的答案必定在埃塞俄比亚。尽管我不知道为什么会如此，我还是这样断定。 同时，我也在努力寻找学术资料，以支持我这个观点，即约柜一定是在玛拿西国王在位时期失踪的。在一部学术专著里，我找到了这样的资料。以前我已经多次参阅过这部著作了，它就是梅纳海姆·哈兰教授的《古代以色列的神庙及祭祀活动》。我在书中读到这样一段话： 犹太王国经历了各种各样的变迁，这个过程中，耶路撒 冷的那座圣殿始终发挥着耶和华圣殿的作用……在圣殿的历 史上，只有一个时期，圣殿被剥夺了它的最初功能，并暂时 停止了发挥作为耶和华圣殿的作用……这种情况发生在玛拿 西国王在位时期……他为巴力神筑了祭坛……放置在圣殿的 外围圣所里……他还把亚舍拉的雕像放进了圣殿的内殿…… 这个事件是对的柜和带翼天使雕像（基路伯）失踪的惟一解 释……我们有理由做出一个推断：当时，亚舍拉的雕像代替 了约柜和基路伯。大约过了50年之后，约西亚国王从圣殿 里搬走了亚舍拉的雕像，把它抬到汲沦谷（Kidrom）烧毁， 打碎成灰，甚至扬掉了它的灰烬。但是，约根和基路伯已经 不复存在了。 我给希伯来大学打了几次电话，终于找到了梅纳海姆·哈兰教授。他头发灰白，身体结实。他属于那种典型的《圣经》研究学者，学识渊博，却格外注重实际——在以色列，你经常能见到这样的学者。我先向他简要介绍了我自己的考察工作，然后问他是否能肯定约柜是在玛拿西国王在位时期失踪的。 "我能肯定，"他满怀信心地回答说，"我对这一点深信不疑。后来巴比伦人归还了从圣殿掠夺的器皿和宝物，而清单里并没有约柜，其原因也就在此。我还应该极为谨慎地补充一句，在这个问题上，学术界从来没有对我的这些观点提出过质疑。" 我抓住这个机会，提出了一个已经困扰了我一些时候的问题："如果约柜真的是由于玛拿西国王的叛教而被移出圣殿的，那么，你又如何解释《圣经）对约柜失踪只字不提呢？" "我这样解释：把这个情况写进《圣经》，那就会使《圣经》作者们感到憎恶，使他们怀有如此可怕的感情。因此，他们就坚决回避了这件事。所以我相信他们是有意不去记载约柜失踪的。即使在对玛拿西王朝的记载中，他们也无法掩饰自己的厌恶之情。不过，他们还是不能听任自己去描述约柜失踪这个事件本身。" 我接着问："你是否知道，约柜被移出圣殿之后究竟怎么样了？" 哈兰耸了耸肩膀："我无法对此做出推测，不可能找到什么证明。我只能有把握地说，耶和华的忠实祭司们，无论如何也不会让耶和华的约柜和亚舍拉的偶像同处一地。" "那么，你是否认为他们把约柜送到了另外什么地方，送到了一个安全的地方呢？" 教授又耸了耸肩膀："我已经说过，我不能对这类事情做出推测。不过，根据我们的记载，根据《圣经》，我还是能确定一点：在玛拿西王朝时期，对那些忠于对耶和华的信仰的人来说，耶路撒冷本身就不安全；实际上，整个国家都不安全。" "你指的是不是《列王纪》里又流许多无辜人的血那段经文呢？" "正是。就是《列王纪下》第对章第16节。还不止那一段。耶利米也间接地提到了同一个事件，他说：你的剑已经像伤害性命的狮子一样，吞掉了你的那些先知。我毫不怀疑，他这里说的就是玛拿西国王的所作所为。我因此推断，当时曾有一些先知反对玛拿西，因此被他屠杀了。你知道，在玛拿西王朝时期，你连一位先知都找不到，这个现象很有意思。先知耶利米是后来才到耶路撒冷的，而其他的先知是在玛拿西在位之前去的，例如先知以赛亚。这段空白是玛拿西的迫害造成的，是持续不断地扫荡对耶和华的信仰的结果。" 这位教授不愿进一步讨论这个问题，并且坚决拒绝对约柜的下落做毫无意义的推断。我提到我的那个理论，即约柜可能被送到了埃塞俄比亚，他茫然地看着我，大约有半分钟。然后他才说："那里好像相当遥远。" 尼罗河上的神庙 采访过梅纳海姆·哈兰，我回到了饭店，感到失去了方向，心中充满了困惑。哈兰证实了约柜是在玛拿西国王在位时期失踪的，这当然令人振奋；但问题却在于：我现在似乎正站在一个智力悬崖的边缘。埃塞俄比亚离耶路撒冷确实"相当遥远"，我也看不出：耶和华的忠诚祭司们当年把约柜抬出圣殿以后，究竟会出于什么样的有力理由，一定要把它送到那么遥远的地方去。 何况日期也不对。玛拿西在位的时间是从公元前687年到公元前642年，可是，塔纳·奇克斯岛的传说却说，约柜直到公元前470年前后才被送到岛上。这两个日期之间还有200年的差距。 我仔细思索着这个难题，知道我需要做的事情就是：和一些埃塞俄比亚人谈一谈。和埃塞俄比亚人交谈的地点，难道还有比以色列国更合适的吗？在过去10年当中，成千上万的法拉沙人已经被空运到了以色列，因为根据以色列的《回归法》，法拉沙人都自动获得了以色列的公民身份。他们当中肯定有一些长者，他们十分熟悉法拉沙人的那些传说，所以能帮我在这个地理的和年代日期的深渊上架起一座桥梁，那个深渊正裂开在我面前。Is not it? 我又向希伯来大学提出了要求，由此得到了一个名字：莎尔瓦·魏尔，此人是位社会人类学家，专门研究古代犹太人的群体，被认为是研究法拉沙人文化的专家。我给她的家中打了电话，先做了自我介绍，又问她是否能推荐居住在耶路撒冷的法拉沙人群体的某个成员，能够有把握地讲述埃塞俄比亚犹太人的那些古老传说。 她毫不犹豫地回答道："你最好是去找拉斐尔·哈达尼。他是个祭司，资格很老。他已经在这里住了几年。他上了年纪，知道得极多。惟一的问题是他不会说英语，所以你应该先找到他的儿子，再去见他。" "他儿子叫什么？" "叫约瑟夫·哈达尼。70年代他就来以色列了，那时他还是个孩子。他现在是个训练有素的拉比。他的英语说得很流利，所以能为你做翻泽。" 为了安排见面，我花费了此后两天在耶路撒冷的大部分时间。不过，我还是在"法拉沙人安置中心"见到了哈达尼一家，这个中心位于耶路撒冷西郊的"摩瓦瑟维·锡安"区。 法拉沙祭司拉斐尔·哈达尼穿着传统的阿比西尼亚长袍，留着引人注目的长髯。 我打开了录音机，开始采访哈达尼拉比的那位德高望重的老父亲。他讲了法拉沙人的文化和宗教，其中大部分情况我已经很熟悉了。然而，当我把话题转到我最关心的话题上（即犹太教究竟是何时进入埃塞俄比亚的）的时候，他给我讲的一些事情却使我竖起了耳朵。 我先问他关于门涅利克和示巴女王的传说，想等他重复完《国王的光荣》里的那个故事，再问他传说里门涅利克从耶路撒冷到埃塞俄比亚之行究竟是在什么时候。可是，老哈达尼却根本没提那个传说，这使我很惊讶。他说："我们有些人说，我们的祖先是当年那些随从门涅利克的以色列人。不过，我并不相信这个说法。根据我小时候就听到的那些传说，我们的祖先是犹太人，他们到埃塞俄比亚之前住在埃及。" "可是，"我插话说，"《国王的光荣》里也是这么说的。它说门涅利克和他的随从当年是经过埃及到埃塞俄比亚的。" "我不是这个意思。我是说，当年我们的祖先离开以色列之后并不仅仅是路过了埃及。他们在那个国家居住了很长的时间，住了好几百年。他们还在埃及建造了一座神庙。" 我把身子探过了录音机，问道："神庙？他们把这座神庙建在了什么地方呢？" "在阿斯旺。" 我想，这个情况非常有意思。我在1月份采访安波博尔村的本堂神甫所罗门·阿莱姆时，他也提到过阿斯旺。当时我曾打算去一趟阿斯旺。其实，那次采访以后我去过埃及的许多地方，只是还没有去过远在南方的阿斯旺。我现在开始想，那是不是我的一个错误。如果阿斯旺果真像老哈达尼方才说的那样，有座犹太人的神庙，那么这个情况就可能具有十分重要的意义，因为正统犹太教神庙的作用就是作为约柜的安放所。如果阿斯旺真有一座神庙，如果这座神庙是在约柜被送出耶路撒冷之后建造的，那么，其中的含义就再明显不过了。 但是，老哈达尼却根本不能确定阿斯旺这座神庙的建造日期。他只告诉我，那座神庙存在了"很长一段时期"，后来终于被毁掉了。 "它为什么被毁掉了呢？" "当时埃及爆发了战争。一个占领过许多国家的外国国王到了埃及，毁掉了埃及人的所有神庙。但是他却没有拆毁我们的神庙。埃及人看见只有犹太人的神庙没有被毁，就怀疑我们和入侵者站在一边。正因为这个理由，埃及人就开始反对我们，毁掉了我们的神庙，而我们不得不逃亡。" "你们就去了埃塞俄比亚么？" "不是直接去的。我们的祖先首先经过莫罗，去了苏丹，在那里住了不长的时间。可是他们又被另一场战争赶出了苏丹。后来他们分成了两路：一路沿着特克泽河走；另一路沿着尼罗河走。就这样，他们到了埃塞俄比亚，到了塔纳湖附近的瓜拉。我们在那儿建起了自己的家园。我们在那儿变成了埃塞俄比亚人。由于我们远离以色列，尽管我们在埃及和苏丹期间一直维持着和耶路撒冷的联系，现在我们还是和它失去了联系，它已经仅仅成了我们的一个回忆。" 接着，我问老哈达尼，塔纳湖区是否有什么地方被法拉沙人视为格外重要或格外神圣。 他回答说："有三个地方。第一个最重要，是塔纳·奇克斯岛；第二个是达伽·斯台方诺岛；第三个是泽基岛。" 我抬起了眉毛："为什么塔纳·奇克斯岛最重要呢？" "我不太清楚。不过我们的人都认为它是个圣岛。" 我的最后一个问题很具体，和约柜有关："埃塞俄比亚的基督教徒说，他们在阿克苏姆城里有约柜，就是传说里门涅利克从耶路撒冷带来的那个真约柜，而门涅利克是示巴女王和所罗门王的儿子。可是，你相信基督徒们说的他们有约柜吗？" "我们的人都相信约柜就在阿克苏姆，我自己也相信。实际上，我和我们其他几位宗教领袖曾经在几年前去过阿克苏姆，想亲眼看看约柜。我们对这个传说非常感兴趣，我们想看看这只圣柜，所以我们就去了。我们到了阿克苏姆，去了锡安山圣玛利教堂。可是人家却不准我们进放约柜的礼拜堂，说我们若进去就会送命。我们说，好吧，我们先去洁净身体，然后再来看约柜。我们洗了澡，使自己洁净，可是那些基督教神甫还是不让我们进礼拜堂。这样一来，我们只好回家了。我们没能看见约柜。" "我听说每年的主显节仪式上都要把约柜抬出来。你们如果在主显节的时候去阿克苏姆城，就更有可能见到约柜了。" 老哈达尼冷笑了一下："我也听说过这个。可是我不相信基督教徒们曾经把真约柜抬出来过。他们不会那么做。他们从不把约柜给任何人看。他们会使用一个复制品。你知道为什么吗？因为约柜是很久很久以前他们从我们手里拿去的，他们不想把它还给我们。他们把约柜看得很紧。所以说，他们总是把约柜藏在那个礼拜堂里，周围有栏杆，除了那个被指定的护卫僧，谁都不能接近它。" 我离开了"摩瓦瑟维·锡安"郊区的"法拉沙人安置中心"，回到了耶路撒冷城里。我脑子里充满了种种想法和问题。在我考察中采访过的所有埃塞俄比亚犹太人当中，老哈达尼目前是说话最清晰、知道得也最多的一个。他那次去阿克苏姆看约柜的尝试使我很入迷。根据我1989年11月在塔纳·奇克斯岛了解到的情况，他对这个岛格外重视，这肯定也具有重要的意义。不过，他的回答中最使我感兴趣的却是：他提到了在历史上某个遥远的时期，阿斯旺曾有一座犹太人的神庙。如果这个说法是真的，我当然要到上埃及的这个城镇去一趟，它位于凯尔奈克和卢克索以南大约200千米的地方。 回到我住的饭店，我拨通了莎尔瓦·魏尔博士的电话，这位社会人类学家介绍我认识了老哈达尼。 "采访进行得怎么样？"她的语气很轻松。 "很好，谢谢你。这对我太有帮助了。感谢你为我联系。" I hesitated.每当我向学者们提出一些白痴般的问题时，总是感到自己很蠢。可是，这个问题不问又不行。于是，我便硬着头皮问道："我采访的时候，哈达尼对我提到了一座神庙，一座犹太人的神庙，在埃及的阿斯旺。我知道，我下面要问的问题会显得有点儿蠢，不过我知道，不经过一番核实，绝