FROM NOMADISM

TO MONARCHY?
Revisiting the Early Iron Age Southern Levant

Edited by
Ido Koch
Oded Lipschits
Omer Sergi

MOSAICS 3
From Nomadism
to Monarchy?
tel aviv university
sonia and marco nadler institute of archaeology

mosaics | studies on ancient israel

NO. 3

Executive Editor Oded Lipschits

Managing Editor Tsipi Kuper-Blau
Editorial Board Ran Barkai
Yuval Gadot
Ido Koch
Dafna Langgut
Nadav Naʾaman
Lidar Sapir-Hen
Guy D. Stiebel
Deborah Sweeney
English-Language Editor Sean Dugaw
Graphic Designer Ayelet Gazit
From Nomadism
to Monarchy?
Revisiting the Early Iron Age Southern Levant

Edited by
Ido Koch, Oded Lipschits and Omer Sergi

With contributions by
Eran Arie, Erez Ben-Yosef, Cynthia Edenburg, Israel Finkelstein, Yuval Gadot, Assaf Kleiman,
Ido Koch, Dafna Langgut, Gunnar Lehmann, Aren M. Maeir, Nadav Naʾaman, Thomas Römer, Lidar
Sapir-Hen, Omer Sergi, Katja Soennecken, Dieter Vieweger, Ido Wachtel and Naama Yahalom-Mack

co-published by
eisenbrauns | university park, pennsylvania
and emery and claire yass publications in archaeology | the institute of archaeology, tel aviv university
Mosaics: Studies on Ancient Israel

Cover illustration: Collared-rim pithos from Tel Megiddo

(photo by Sasha Flit, The Institute of Archaeology of
Tel Aviv University)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data © Copyright 2023 by the Institute of Archaeology

Names: Koch, Ido, editor. | Lipschits, Oded, editor. |
Sergi, Omer, 1977– editor.
Title: From nomadism to monarchy? : revisiting the early Iron
Age southern Levant / edited by Ido Koch, Oded Lipschits
and Omer Sergi ; with contributions by Eran Arie [and
seventeen others].
Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : Eisenbrauns
; [Tel Aviv, Israel] : Emery and Clare Yass Publications
in Archaeology, The Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv
University, [2023].
Summary: “A collection of essays reevaluating the archaeology
and history of the early Iron Age Southern Levant and
how the period may be reflected in the biblical accounts”—
Provided by publisher.
Identifiers: LCCN 2023030670 | ISBN 9781646022618 (hardback)
Subjects: LCSH: Iron age—Middle East. | Excavations
(Archaeology)—Middle East. | Middle East—Antiquities.
Classification: LCC GN780.32.M4 F76 2023
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023030670
of Tel Aviv University
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
Eisenbrauns is an imprint of The Pennsylvania State
University Press.
The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member
of the Association of University Presses.
It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press
to use acid-free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy
the minimum requirements of American National Standard
for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed
Library Material, ANSI Z39.48–1992.
Contents

Contributors vii
Preface xi

Introduction1
IDO KOCH, ODED LIPSCHITS AND OMER SERGI

1. Paleo-environment of the Southern Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages: The Pollen Evidence 7
Dafna Langgut and Israel Finkelstein

2. Animal Subsistence Economy during the Late Bronze–Iron I: Continuity vs. Change 29
Lidar Sapir-Hen

3. From Production Autonomy to Centralization:

The Iron I to Iron IIA Transition from a Metallurgical Perspective 41
Naama Yahalom-Mack

4. The Northern Coastal Plain during the Early Iron Age (Iron I–Early Iron IIA) 53
Gunnar Lehmann

5. Sixty Years after Aharoni: Iron Age Settlements in the Upper Galilee 87
Ido Wachtel

6. Beyond Hazor: Urban Durability, Political Instability and Collective Memory

in the Northern Jordan Valley at the Turn of the Second Millennium BCE 101
Assaf Kleiman

7. Canaanites in a Changing World: The Jezreel Valley during the Iron Age I 119
Eran Arie

8. Transitions between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age II:
The Character of the Iron I Settlement at Tall Zirāʿa in Northern Jordan 135
Dieter Vieweger and Katja Soennecken

9. Iron I Settlements in the Highlands of Samaria and the Creation

of Group Identities with an Emphasis on Mount Ebal 149
Yuval Gadot

10. The Formation of the Israelite Monarchies in Archaeology, History and Historiography 159
Omer Sergi

11. Like Frogs out of a Pond: Identity Formation in Early Iron Age Philistia and Beyond 201
Aren M. Maeir

12. Collapse and Regeneration in Late Second Millennium Southwest Canaan 209
Ido Koch

v
vi

13. A False Contrast? On the Possibility of an Early Iron Age Nomadic Monarchy
in the Arabah (Early Edom) and Its Implications for the Study of Ancient Israel 235
Erez Ben-Yosef

14. The Book of Josiah or the Book of Joshua? Excavating the Literary History of the Conquest Story 263
Cynthia Edenburg

15. The Origin, Function and Disappearance of the Ark of the Covenant according to the Hebrew Bible 279
Thomas Römer

16. The Scope of the Pre-Deuteronomistic Saul–David Story Cycle 291

Nadav Naʾaman

17. The Rise of Ancient Israel: The View from 2021 303
Israel Finkelstein

Index of Geographic Names 315

Index of Subjects 319
Index of Modern Authors 321
 15
The Origin, Function and Disappearance of the Ark
of the Covenant according to the Hebrew Bible

Thomas Römer

The Ark of the Covenant, or Ark of Yhwh, has stimulated
the imagination of many people from biblical times to
today. It has served as the inspiration for numerous
stories, as the subject of paintings, and even as fodder
for Hollywood directors. There are likely many reasons
for this fascination. For starters, the Hebrew Bible itself
leaves several questions about the Ark open: What
happened to the Ark after King Solomon brought it into
the Temple? Was the Ark deported or destroyed when the
Babylonians conquered Jerusalem? And what did the Ark
originally contain?
The Ark in the Hebrew Bible: An Overview
The Ark of Yhwh, or the Ark of the Covenant, appears
in all three sections of the Hebrew Bible. In the Torah
the Ark is mentioned for the first time1 in the Book of
Exodus (Exod 25–31 and 35–40), in relation to the
construction of the mobile sanctuary. We then find it in
Leviticus 16:2 and six times in the Book of Numbers:
three times it is mentioned as part of the mobile sanctuary,
and three times as a guide for the people during the desert
wandering (Num 10:33 and 35) and in war (Num 14:44).
In the Book of Deuteronomy, the Ark is mentioned in
two chapters—Deuteronomy 10 and 31. Deuteronomy
10 reads like an alternative narrative of the Ark’s
construction to that of Exodus 25–31 and 35–40. Contrary
to the presentation in Exodus, the texts in Deuteronomy
emphasize the idea that the Ark contained the two tablets
of the Law.
The Ark appears in all the books of the Former
Prophets. In the conquest accounts of the Book of Joshua,
it plays a role in the crossing of the Jordan story, where
it is carried by the priests (Josh 3–4). It is further
mentioned during the walls of Jericho narrative (Josh 6),
and once again in Joshua 7:6. However, it does not appear
in any of the other conquest narratives. In the Book of
Joshua, the last mention of the Ark occurs in 8:33, during

*
This essay was originally written for the colloquium that took place in 2017. Since then, I have further pursued my work on the Ark Narrative
and have written several articles, both alone and with Israel Finkelstein. These works provide additional detail and also depart at times from the
opinion expressed in this essay. Cf. Römer 2019a; 2019b; 2020a; 2020b; 2021; Finkelstein and Römer 2019; 2020.
1. The term ʾarôn is employed in Genesis 50:26 in order to refer to the box in which the Israelites were said to have transported Joseph’s bones.
280 thomas römer
a ceremony of blessings and curses. Here it is associated
with the Levites, as is also the case in Deuteronomy. The
Book of Judges contains only a short note about the Ark,
according to which it was located at Bethel in the time
of the Judges (Judg 20:27).
In the Book of Samuel, however, the Ark is found in
the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 Sam 3:3). 1 Samuel 4:1–7:1
contains a long story commonly referred to as the “Ark
Narrative.” This narrative recounts how the Philistines
captured the Ark and placed it in the sanctuary of their
god Dagon. However, the power of the Ark was so
strong that the Philistines returned it. Once back in
Israel, the Ark remained at Kiriath-Jearim for 20 years.
It is then briefly mentioned in the story of the battle of
Saul and Jonathan against the Philistines in 1 Samuel
14:18 (in which the Ark seems to be located at Gibeah
of Benjamin). 2 Samuel 6, often considered the
conclusion of the Ark Narrative, depicts David’s transfer
of the Ark to Jerusalem.
In 1 Kings, the Ark is mentioned in the story of
Solomon’s rise and during the construction of the Temple
(1 Kgs 3–8). After the completion of the Temple, Solomon
is said to have placed the Ark within the Holy of Holies.
Yet astonishingly, the Ark disappears from the Book of
Kings thereafter2 and no information is provided about
what becomes of it during the fall of Jerusalem.
In the Latter Prophets, the Ark appears only in the
Book of Jeremiah, in the context an oracle which demands
that commemoration of the lost Ark should cease and
that no new one should be constructed (Jer 3:16).3
In the Writings, the authors of Chronicles seem
particularly interested in the “ark of the covenant of
Yhwh”; they even add new passages about the Ark, which
do not appear in the Books of Samuel or Kings. These
passages emphasize the role of the Levites and the Ark’s
association with the divine covenant (Jonker 2015).
Outside Chronicles, there is only one mention of the
Ark—Psalms 132:8 speaks of the Ark in in a way that
alludes to its entry into Jerusalem.
To sum up, we can distinguish three major textual
blocks in which the Ark is mentioned: a) as an item of
the mobile sanctuary or of the Jerusalem temple, b) as a
2. The mention of an ʾarôn in 2 Kings 12:10–11 does not refer to the Ark, but to a chest for collecting money.
3. See Römer 2019a.
symbol of Yhwh’s presence in the conquest account of
the Book of Joshua and finally c) as the “main character”
in the so-called Ark Narrative.
The Ark and the Sanctuary
According to scholarly consensus, the texts which
relate the construction of the Ark in Exodus 25–32 and
35–40 belong to a priestly layer of the Pentateuch,
which might perhaps even belong to a later date than
the so-called Grundschrift. In these texts, the Ark is
predominantly referred to as the ʾarôn ha-ʿedût, “ark
of the testimony.” Interestingly, these P-texts avoid
the term berît, which they do employ elsewhere (e.g.,
Gen 9 and 17). The use of the lexeme ʿedut may
presuppose the Deuteronomistic idea of the Ark as a
container for tablets of stone (Seow 1989: 191–192).
Another potential explanation is that the priestly
discourse regarding the Ark may have been influenced
by the Mesopotamian practice of deposit tablets. These
tablets contained royal inscriptions describing the
construction of a temple or palace, which were
subsequently placed into boxes as a building deposit.
According to Hurowitz (1992: 110–113), such royal
building inscriptions inspired the priestly account of
the building of the tabernacle. If this was indeed the
case, the priestly writers of Exodus 25–31 and 35–40
would have understood the Ark as a building deposit
for the mobile sanctuary in the wilderness, containing
the divine instructions that Yhwh had given to Moses
in Exodus 25–31. In this way, P would thus have
transformed the traditional conception of a building
deposit, since the sanctuary was portable, the building
deposit had to likewise be transportable.
The texts in Deuteronomy 10 and 31 understand the
construction of the Ark quite differently. The Ark is called
ha-ʾarôn or ʾarôn berît Yhwh and is presented as the
container of the tablets of the Law, as in 1 Kings 8.
The Book of Chronicles preserves the latest biblical
texts concerning the Ark. Within these texts, the Ark is
referred to as the ʾarôn, ʾarôn Yhwh, ʾarôn (ha-)ʾelohîm
or ʾarôn berît Yhwh. The Chronicler very often added
 the origin, function and disappearance of the ark of the covenant
the term berît (“Covenant”) to qualify the Ark, which
stands in contrast to many texts in the Book of Samuel.
R. Klein (2006: 356) observed that, “Where the passages
have a parallel in the Vorlage, in each case the Chronicler
added the word “covenant.” For the Chronicler, the ark
is the symbol of the covenant relationship between
Yahweh and Israel and also the symbol of Yahweh’s
presence in Jerusalem.” The Chronicler probably wished
to suggest a degree of continuity between the “Ark of
the Covenant” and Yhwh’s covenant with the Patriarchs.
In contrast to the priestly texts in Exodus, the author of
Chronicles emphasizes the decisive role that the Levites
must play in regard to the Ark and its transportation:
They are the ones who should carry the Ark and who
appear as custodians of the covenant between Yhwh
and Israel. In Chronicles, the Ark plays a major role in
the Levitical liturgy.
At the earliest, all of the aforementioned texts were
written during the Babylonian period. However, most of
them date to the Persian or even Hellenistic periods; taken
together, they point to a transformation of the original
role of the Ark. Traces of such a transformation appear
in the texts of Deuteronomy 10 and 1 Kings 8. According
to 1 Kings 8:9, “There was nothing in the Ark except the
two tablets of stone that Moses had placed there at Horeb,
where Yhwh made a covenant with the Israelites, when
they came out of the land of Egypt.” This emphasis on
the “nothing else” (‫ )אֵין ּבָָארֹון ַרק‬makes it very likely that
the Deuteronomistic and the priestly writers’ discourse
regarding the Ark are the result of a relecture of its
original function.
The “Song of the Ark” in Numbers 10
This original function of the Ark can perhaps be discerned
from the narratives in which it appears in a military
context. In the Books of Joshua and Samuel, as well as
in Numbers 10:33–36 and 14:44, the Ark symbolizes the
divine presence in battle and on campaign. Although the
Book of Numbers is a very late collection of disparate
materials (Achenbach 2003; Römer 2007), it is possible
that some its included sources date to much earlier
(Finkelstein and Römer 2016).
The departure from the wilderness of Sinai is described
in Numbers 10 as follows:
281
(33) So they set out from the mount of Yhwh three days’
journey with the ark of the covenant of Yhwh going
before them three days’ journey, to seek out a resting
place for them, (34) the cloud of Yhwh being over them
by day when they set out from the camp. (35) Whenever
the ark set out, Moses would say, “Arise, Yhwh, let
your enemies be scattered, and your foes flee before
you.” (36) And whenever it came to rest, he would say,
“Return, Yhwh of the ten thousand thousands of Israel.”
Diachronic analysis indicates that verse 34 is an insertion.
Specifically, it is interjected within and interrupts the
presentation of the Ark’s role (Maier 1965: 5; Levin 1993:
374; for the text-critical problems, see Tov 2015:
257–258). Porzig (2009) has argued that the remaining
verses 33b, 35–36 should be considered later than verse
33a because of the repetition of the “three days journey”
in verses 33a and 33b (Seebass 2002: 34). It is true that
the mention of the Ark and the war cry in verse 35 do not
really fit into the context of the Israelites’ departure from
Mount Sinai. Numbers 10:33b, 35–36 were probably
added (together with Num 14:44) in order to lay the
groundwork for the subsequent appearance of the Ark in
the Book of Deuteronomy (Seebass 2002: 9).
However, this does not mean that the content of these
verses is a product of late post-priestly invention, as some
scholars have asserted. Interestingly, the Massoretes
highlighted verses 35 and 36 by framing them with two
inverted nunim, perhaps to underscore the antiquity or
specificity of these sayings about the Ark.
Numbers 10:35 has a clear parallel in Psalms 68:2:
Numbers 10:35b: Psalms 68:2:
‫קּומָה י ְהוָה ְויָפֻצּו אֹיְבֶיָך ְויָנֻסּו‬ ‫י ָקּום אֱֹלהִים י ָפּוצּו אֹויְבָיו ְוי ָנּוסּו‬
‫ׂשנְאֶיָך ִמ ָּפנֶיָך‬
ַ ‫ְמ‬ ‫ׂשנְָאיו ִמ ָּפנָיו‬
ַ ‫ְמ‬
Rise up, Yhwh, let your Let God rise up, let his
enemies be scattered, and enemies be scattered; let
those who hate you flee those who hate him flee
before your face before his face.
Of course, one can debate which of these two texts is
older. Most scholars would argue that Psalms 68 was
derived from Numbers 10:35 (Hossfeld and Zenger 2000:
282 thomas römer
251). However, some commentators hold the view that
Numbers 10:35 was “invented” based on Psalms 68
(Porzig 2009: 36–38). I would further suggest that one
should consider the possibility that both texts refer to a
traditional saying or “song” about Yhwh rising to defend
his people against their enemies.
In Numbers 10, the Ark clearly functions as a portable
“house” of Yhwh in which he resides and from which he
departs when fighting for Israel.
The Ark and the Conquest of the Land
If the original function of the Ark was as a palladium
from which Yhwh’s presence materialized during war, it
is unsurprising that the Ark likewise appears in the Book
of Joshua. Here, however, the Ark’s military function had
somewhat changed. In the story of the crossing of the
Jordan (Josh 3–4) most passages about the Ark connect
it to the priests who have to carry it; thus, it seems to be
more like a liturgical object, similar to its role in the Book
of Chronicles.
Most commentators agree that these verses in Joshua 3–4
about the priests and the procession of the Ark were not part
of the original crossing of the Jordan story. According to
Bieberstein (1995: 135–194), the original story in Joshua
3–4 contained only 3:1, 5, 13b, 14a and 16*:
(1) Early in the morning Joshua rose and set out from
Shittim with all the Israelites, and they came to the
Jordan. They camped there before crossing over. (5)
Then Joshua said to the people, “Sanctify yourselves;
for tomorrow the Lord will do wonders among you.”
(13b) the waters of the Jordan flowing from above shall
be cut off; they shall stand in a single heap.” (14a) When
the people set out from their tents to cross over the
Jordan, (16*) the waters flowing from above stood still,
rising up in a single heap far off at Adam, Then the
people crossed over opposite Jericho.
Such a minimalist reconstruction might invoke
skepticism, yet I believe that Bieberstein (among others)
is right to suppose that the Ark and the priests were not
included in the original story.
4. The last part of v. 7, in which the Ark is mentioned, is probably an addition, cf. Rudolph 1938: 185; Bieberstein 1995: 273–274.
The fact that the Ark is referred to as “Ark of the
Covenant of Yhwh” in some passages and is depicted as
being transported by the priests, seems to indicate a late
date for these insertions, since they combine the
Deuteronomistic conception of the “Ark of the Covenant”
with the priestly emphasis on the role of the kohanîm as
the Ark’s keepers. One may tentatively attribute these
passages to a “Hexateuchal redaction” (see also Knauf
2008: 54–62, who attributes most of Joshua 3–4 to such
a redaction), since it employs the theme of the Ark in
order to emphasize the notion that the Book of Joshua
should be understood as the conclusion of the Torah.
If one compares the role of the priests in Joshua 3–4
with the role of the Levites in Chronicles, one may detect
behind these two books an ideological struggle between
the priests (Aaronides) and Levites (see Jeon 2015). This
rivalry was apparently also related to the question of who
could carry the Ark/who was responsible for carrying the
Ark.
Joshua 6 is quite similar to Joshua 3–4 in that most
mentions of the Ark associate it with the priests. Only
two verses speak of the “Ark of Yhwh” without
referencing the priests.
Inspired by Bieberstein (1995: 230–304), the following
potential reconstruction of the original conquest of
Jericho narrative in Joshua 6 is based on my analysis
presented herein:
(2) Yhwh said to Joshua, “See, I have handed Jericho
over to you, along with its king and soldiers. (3) You
shall march around (wsbtm) the city, all the warriors
circling the city once. Thus you shall do for six days (4)
On the seventh day you shall march around (tsbw) the
city seven times. (5) When they make a long blast with
the ram’s horn, as soon as you hear the sound of the
trumpet, then all the people shall shout with a great shout;
and the wall of the city will fall down flat, and all the
people shall charge straight ahead.” (7) To the people he
said, “Go forward and march around (wsbw) the city
[have the armed men pass on before the ark of Yhwh]4.”
(11) So the [ark]/[people] (see subsequent discussion)
of Yhwh marched (wysb) around the city, circling it
once; and they came into the camp, and spent the night
 the origin, function and disappearance of the ark of the covenant
in the camp. (14) On the second day they marched
around (wysb) the city once and then returned to the
camp. They did this for six days. (15) On the seventh
day they rose early, at dawn, and marched around the
city (wysbw) in the same manner seven times. It was
only on that day that they marched around (sbbw) the
city seven times. (20*) As soon as the people heard the
sound of the trumpets, they raised a great shout, and
the wall fell down flat; so the people charged straight
ahead into the city and captured it. (21) Then they
devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in
the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen,
sheep, and donkeys. (27) Yhwh was with Joshua; and
his fame was in all the land.
The question remains as to whether or the Ark of Yhwh
was in the original account. Verse 11 is necessary for
the story’s logic, but Bieberstein (1995: 278–279;
following Wellhausen 1899: 590) has convincingly
argued that the mention of the “Ark of Yhwh” has
probably replaced an original ʿam. Indeed, all the other
occurrences of the root s-b-b (“to march around”) refer
to the people, so that one could imagine the same being
true for verse 11.
The insertion of the Ark of Yhwh in verses 7 and 11
would then be an earlier attempt to introduce the Ark into
the narrative of the conquest of Jericho, owing to the
Ark’s military function. Later redactors, the same ones
who introduced the Ark and the priests in Joshua 3 and
4, would have subsequently supplemented this account.
The earlier additions in verse 7 and 11 were intended to
attribute the destruction of Jericho to the presence of
Yhwh in his Ark rather than to the people’s action when
they surrounded the walls.
To summarize, the Ark did not originally belong to
the traditions of the wilderness and the conquest of the
land. Its original Sitz im Leben was the tradition
preserved in the Book of Samuel. Only later was the
Ark integrated into the Pentateuch and the Book of
Joshua, perhaps beginning with a reworking of the
conquest of Jericho, in which the Ark continues to serve
its original function.
5. For a more detailed treatment, see Römer 2019b; 2020a; Finkelstein and Römer 2020.
6. According to Edenburg (2016: 228), the mention of the Ark was inserted here “in order to interact with 1 Sam 14:18.”
283
The “Ark Narrative” in the Book of Samuel
In order to properly address the origin, date and
composition of the “Ark Narrative” would require a
lengthy and complicated discussion that would well-
exceed the confines of this essay (Rost 1926; for a history
of research, see Schicklberger 1973: 17–25; Dietrich and
Naumann 1995: 121–143).5 Therefore, I must limit
myself to the following observations:
At the end of the Book of Judges (20:27), the Ark
appears in the sanctuary at Bethel. In contrast, 1 Samuel
3:3 asserts that the Ark stood in the temple of Yhwh at
Shiloh. This contradiction can be quite easily explained.
Judges 20 relates a conflict between Israelite tribes and
the Benjaminites:
(26) Then all the Israelites, the whole army, went back
to Bethel and wept, sitting there before Yhwh; they
fasted that day until evening. Then they offered burnt
offerings and sacrifices of well-being before Yhwh.
(27) And the Israelites inquired of Yhwh­––for the Ark
of the covenant of God was there in those days, (28)
and Phinehas son of Eleazar, son of Aaron, ministered
before it in those days, saying, “Shall we go out once
more to battle against our kinsfolk the Benjaminites,
or shall we desist?”
This mention of the Ark, along with the priest Phinehas
son of Eleazar, is clearly an insert (Edenburg 2016:
227–229) which interrupts the original story, as is
evidenced by the fact that the beginning of verse 27 is
continued in verse 28b. The insertion of the Ark and the
priest was likely triggered by the mention of sacrifices
at the sanctuary of Bethel in verse 26. Apparently, in the
redactor’s view, prior to the construction of the Temple
of Jerusalem, sacrifices could only be offered by priests
in the presence of the Ark.6 Therefore he needed the Ark
to be in Bethel, regardless of the contradiction this created
with 1 Samuel 3 and the Ark Narrative.
The latter portion of 1 Samuel 3:3 reads: “Samuel was
lying down in the temple of Yhwh, where the ark of God
was.” This verse was certainly inserted in the story about
Samuel’s calling in order to prefigure the so-called Ark
284 thomas römer
Narrative (Dietrich 2010: 177) that begins in 1 Samuel
4 with the defeat of the Israelites at the hands of the
Philistines:
(3) And the people came to the camp, the elders of
Israel said, “Why has Yhwh smitten us today before
the Philistines? Let us bring here from Shiloh the ark
of our God7 [the covenant of Yhwh], so that he may
come among us and save us from the power of our
enemies.” (4) So the people sent to Shiloh, and took
from there the ark [of the covenant] of Yhwh [Tsebaot],
who is enthroned on the cherubim. The two sons of Eli,
Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark [of the
covenant]8 of the Deity.
The mention of the Ark in 1 Samuel 4:4–5 indicates
its function. It is a portable “house” of Yhwh from
which he can exit in order to defend his people against
their enemies.
There are no texts in the Bible that recount the Ark’s
arrival in Shiloh after the conquest of the Land, which
indicates that what we have here is an independent Ark
tradition connected to the sanctuary at Shiloh.
According to Israel Finkelstein’s excavations, the site
was abandoned or destroyed in the middle of the 11th
century BCE, after which it was only sparsely
repopulated during the 8th and 7th centuries BCE
(Finkelstein 1992). Interestingly, the temple at Shiloh
(which was not found during excavations conducted
at the site) is not criticized within Deuteronomistic
redaction layer of the Books of Samuel and Kings.
This could potentially be due to the presence of the
Ark in the shrine. The priestly dynasty of the Elides
is condemned, but the sanctuary itself is not.
Regarding the ideology of cult centralization—an
important theme in the “Deuteronomistic history”—the
Deuteronomists seem to have settled on a compromise
of a sort (Römer 2017). They admit that in the
pre-monarchic times, before the construction of the
temple in Jerusalem, there was another chosen place—
Shiloh. From an exilic or postexilic perspective, this idea
was not too difficult to accept, since Shiloh had already
been demolished centuries before the destruction of the
7. According to the LXX Vaticanus.
8. All terms in brackets are absent in the LXX Vaticanus.
First Temple. The theory that Yhwh had chosen Shiloh
before Jerusalem is clearly laid out within Jeremiah’s
Temple speech:
(12) Go now to my place (‫ ) ְמקֹו ִמי‬that was in Shiloh,
where I made my name dwell at first (‫ׁשמִי ׁשָם‬ ְ ‫ׁש ַּכנְּתִ י‬
ִ ‫ֲאׁשֶר‬
‫)ּב ִָראׁשֹונָה‬, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of
my people Israel. (13) And now, because you have done
all these things, says Yhwh, and when I spoke to you
persistently, you did not listen, and when I called you,
you did not answer, (14) therefore I will do to the house
that is called by my name (‫ׁש ִמי‬ ְ ‫ׁשר נִ ְק ָרא־‬
ֶ ‫ׂשיתִ י ַל ַּבי ִת ֲא‬
ִ ‫ְו ָע‬
‫) ָעלָיו‬, in which you trust, and to the place that I gave to
you and to your fathers, just what I did to Shiloh. (Jer
7:12–14)
The Deuteronomists could accept the idea that there had
been “legitimate” Yhwh sanctuaries before the
construction of the temple in Jerusalem, even Northern
ones. This conception of a prior divine choice, which was
later revoked, can be compared to the election of Saul,
who is later rejected in favor of David.
Continuing this line of thought, one may wonder
whether the Ark Narrative in 1 Samuel also suggests a
transfer from Shiloh to Kiriath-Jearim. The Ark Narrative
relates how the Ark was captured and placed in the
sanctuary of the deity Dagon in Ashdod. This practice
can be compared to the deportation of divine statues
(Delcor 1964), a practice that is attested in cuneiform
sources from the Old Babylonian period through the reign
of the Neo-Babylonians during the 6th century BCE. The
capture of an enemy’s deities was meant to demonstrate
the superiority the victor’s own deities.
An example of this practice appears in the Annals of
Sennacherib: “Sidqa, king of Ashkelon, who had not
submitted to my yoke, the gods of his father-house,
himself, his wife, his sons, his daughters, his brothers,
… I tore away and brought to Assyria” II: 60–64
(Luckenbill 1924: 30).
The “Nimrud prism,” an inscription of Sargon II
redacted in 706 BCE, mentions “the gods in which
they had put their trust” among the booty taken during
the destruction of Samaria. This inscription should be
 the origin, function and disappearance of the ark of the covenant
juxtaposed with two Neo-Assyrian bas-reliefs on
which soldiers, of Sargon and of Sennacherib
respectively, can be seen transporting statues of gods
among their war loot.
Sargon’s statement stresses the weakness of the
enemies’ gods. This disparagement of the gods of the
enemies can even lead to the denial of their divinity via
the destruction of the divine statues. Ashurbanipal records
his destruction of Elamite deities: “I smashed their gods
and thereby smoothened the heart of the lord of the lords”
(Streck 1916; VAB 7/2, 50: 119–20).
The author of the Ark Narrative was no doubt familiar
with these practices, as he drew upon them to create a
contrasting history for the Ark. In 1 Samuel 5, when the
Ark is placed in the sanctuary of Dagon, it is the statue
of Dagon that is smashed through Yhwh’s power.
(2) The Philistines took the ark of God and brought it
into the house of Dagon and placed it beside Dagon.
(3) The people of Ashdod rose early the next day, [and
went to the house of Dagon]9: there was Dagon, fallen
on his face to the ground before the ark of Yhwh. So
they took Dagon and put him back in his place. (4) And
they rose early on the next morning: Dagon had fallen
on his face to the ground before the ark of Yhwh, and
the head of Dagon and the two soles of his hands were
lying cut off upon the threshold; only the trunk of Dagon
was left to him.
On the first night, Dagon falls down before Yhwh as if
he needed to worship him. Rather than Yhwh paying
homage before the Philistine deity, it is Dagon who
prostrates himself before Yhwh. On the second night,
however, the statue of Dagon is amputated in a way
reminiscent of both the mythical theme of divine battle
and the destruction of divine statues by the Assyrians.
After this manifestation of Yhwh’s power, the
Philistines decide to return the Ark to the Israelites. This
return of the Ark recalls the practice of returning divine
statues. Assyrian and Babylonian kings would praise
themselves for having brought back deported gods to
their original sanctuaries. The Esarhaddon Prism records
9. Missing in the MT, only in the LXX.
10. Translation according to http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=291290&partId=1.
11. Schicklberger 1973: 25–73, followed by Porzig 2009: 141–142; and see Römer 2019b.
285
the return of stolen divine statues. The king praises
himself to be the one
(23) who had restored to their places the gods of the
lands (24) despoiled from the midst of the city of Ashur,
and had made them dwell in a peaceful abode (25) until
he had completed the shrines and had installed the gods
in their sanctuaries, …10
Since the best parallels to 1 Samuel 4–6 are to be found
in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian practices of
deportation and restoration of the gods of vanquished
people, it may be assumed that the Ark Narrative was
composed or revised during the 8th or 7th centuries
BCE. In the light of these parallels, it also becomes clear
that the function of the Ark matches the function of a
divine statue. It is therefore plausible that the Ark
contained a representation of Yhwh, an issue that I will
return to shortly.
A full reconstruction the original Ark Narrative in
1 Samuel 4:1–7:2* would exceed the scope of this essay.
Suffice to say, I am not convinced by the proposal that
the original layer was limited to a Katastrophengeschichte
in 1 Sam 4:1–2*, 10–18*, recounting how the Ark was
lost in a war with the Philistines.11 Accordingly, Chapters
5 and 6 would have had to have been added much later,
in order to transform the defeat into a glorious victory. I
cannot understand why one would only tell a story about
the loss of the Ark. In my view, such an independent
defeat narrative does not make much sense. It seems more
logical to imagine that the original layer was a story about
the loss and return of the Ark and its travels before
reaching a new home at Kiriath-Jearim.
Indeed, at the end of the story of the lost Ark and its
eventual return, Shiloh vanishes from the scene, with
no explanation given for why the Ark was not brought
back to its original place. Therefore, it is plausible that
the original Ark Narrative ended with the installation
of the Ark at Kiriath-Jearim (today Deir el-ʿAzar, next
to Abu Gosh). Apparently, the story of the transfer of
the Ark to Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6 was only added later
(perhaps during the reign of Josiah) in order to legitimate
286 thomas römer
Jerusalem as the proper place for the Ark. Several
scholars (e.g., Wellhausen 1899: 238; Schicklberger
1973: 13–17; Miller and Roberts 1977: 18–26; Porzig
2009: 134–135, 161–162) have indeed highlighted the
differences between the Ark Narrative in 1 Samuel 4:1–7:2*
and the transfer story in 2 Samuel 6. The most important
arguments are the following: 1) If 2 Samuel 6 directly
followed 1 Samuel 7:1, David would appear without any
introduction. 2) The names differ: 1 Samuel 7 mentions
Eleazar as Abinadab’s son, 2 Samuel 6 speaks about
Uzza and Ahio. 3) In 1 Samuel 4–6, the Ark is identified
with Yhwh and acting directly, whereas in 2 Samuel 6
the Ark is more a cultic symbol. 4) The style and
vocabulary are quite different between 1 Samuel 4–6
and 2 Samuel 6. Both units share only 4 of the 54 words
and expressions that Rost considered to be typical for
the so-called Ark Narrative (Schäfer-Lichtenberger
1995: 328).
That means that the original Ark Narrative ended
with the establishment of a new shrine for the Ark at
Kiriath-Jearim. This name means “city of forests,” but
in some texts the place is referred to as qiryat baal, such
as in the Judahite city list (Josh 15:60) and the
Benjaminite boundary list (Josh 18:14). If Kiriath Baal
was the settlement’s original name, it is possible that
that it contained a sanctuary of Baal. However, the
identity of this “baal” is not easy to determine, since
Baal can also be understood as a title of Yhwh. The fact
that according to the biblical record the Ark remained
about twenty years in this place may indicate that
Kiriath-Jeraim contained a sanctuary hosting the
palladium of the warrior god Yhwh.12
This hypothesis is also supported by 1 Samuel 7:1,
according to which Abinadab’s son, who hosted the Ark,
was consecrated as a priest:
And the people of Kiriath-Jearim came and took up the
ark of Yhwh, and brought it to the house of Abinadab
on the hill. They consecrated his son, Eleazar, to have
charge of the ark of Yhwh. (1 Sam 7:1)
In this case, one of the aims of the Ark Narrative would
have been to explain how the shrine at Kiriath-Jearim
replaced the sanctuary of Shiloh.
12. See Finkelstein and Römer 2019 for a detailed analysis of the various names of Kiriath-Jearim.
Interestingly, the Masoretic Text of 2 Samuel 6:2
indicates that the Ark is taken ‫ ִמ ַּב ֲעלֵי י ְהּודָ ה‬, an expression
interpreted in various ways, as referring to a place name,
as in the NRSV, or the “lords of Judah,” as in the Latin
version for instance:
David and all the people with him set out and went from
Baale-judah, to bring up from there the ark of God,
which is called by the name of Yhwh Sebaot who is
enthroned on the cherubim. (2 Sam 6:2)
4QSama has “with him to Baalah that is Kiria[th-jearim,
which belongs] to Judah” (Auld 2011: 408). This
Qumran fragment identifies Kirjath-Jearim with Baalah,
which some scholars think might be a polemic attempt
to express the idea that the only legitimate sanctuary
for the Ark is the future temple of Jerusalem. The
connection to Jerusalem is also made through the
expression “Yhwh Sebaot enthroned on the cherubim,”
an allusion to the Holy of Holies in which the ark will
be covered by the cherubim.
What Was in the Ark of Yhwh?
According to Chapter 6 of the first book of Samuel,
the Ark was placed on a cart drawn by two cows, a
sign that it must have been an object of some importance
and size. In this sense, the Ark can be compared to
sacred chests attested in Egyptian iconography which
were used during processions (see Römer 2015: 93–94,
98–100). A chest mounted upon a cart likewise appears
to have been attested among the Phoenicians.
According to Philo of Byblos (ca. 65–140) in his
Phoenician History, two gods named “Fields” (agrós,
perhaps corresponding to šaddāy) and “Rustic”
(agrótēs) were associated with a chest (naós) pulled
by two beasts. An iconographic depiction from Palmyra
features a procession with a camel carrying a portable
sanctuary, that is being worshipped by four men and
veiled women. It is possible that the description of the
Ark of Yhwh in the Ark Narrative depicts a similar
practice.
As previously noted, the tablets in the Ark were likely
a substitute for something else. Perhaps they took the
 the origin, function and disappearance of the ark of the covenant
place of sacred stones, of the kind found in the chests of
pre-Islamic Bedouins. Among certain Arab tribes, these
represented the two goddesses ʾal-Lat and ʾal-Uzza, who
were later replaced by copies of the Koran. The Ark may
have contained two sacred stones representing Yhwh and
a goddess (see Gressmann 1920) or a small statue
representing Yhwh.
When the Ark was placed within the Temple of
Jerusalem, it was probably transformed into the throne
of Yhwh, who then became “Yhwh Ṣebaôt enthroned on
the cherubim.” Then later, the stone representation of
Yhwh was reinterpreted according to Deuteronomistic
theology as containing the stone tablets of the Law.
The lack of reference to the Ark after its introduction
into the Temple is puzzling. This may be an indication
that it wasn’t placed within the Temple of Jerusalem until
much later, perhaps during the reign of Josiah (see Römer
2019b; Finkelstein and Römer 2020).
Interest in the Ark during the Hellenistic
and Roman Periods
Apparently, the Ark was either destroyed or deported
after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, after which there
were some who wanted to construct an Ark for the
Second Temple, as can be seen in a passage from the
Book of Jeremiah:
They shall no longer say: “The Ark of the Covenant of
Yhwh.” It shall no longer come to mind, neither shall
they remember it, neither shall they pay attention to it;
nor shall it be built again. In that time, Jerusalem shall
be called “the throne of Yhwh,” all peoples shall rush
together toward it... (Jer 3:16–17)
This oracle substitutes the city of Jerusalem for the Ark
in its function as the throne of Yhwh. Hence Jerusalem
as a whole is to become the “seat” of the god of Israel,
the center of the world.
However, the second book of Maccabees tells a
different story, according to which the prophet
Jeremiah hid the Ark, together with other holy objects.
Since Jeremiah is the only prophet in the Hebrew Bible
who mentions the Ark, it is logical that the author of
2 Maccabees 2:4–8 attributes the hiding of the Ark
to him:
287
(4) It was also in the same document that the prophet,
having received an oracle, ordered that the tent and the
ark should follow with him, and that he went out to the
mountain where Moses had gone up and had seen the
inheritance of God. (5) Jeremiah came and found a
cave-dwelling, and he brought there the tent and the
ark and the altar of incense; then he sealed up the
entrance. (6) Some of those who followed him came
up intending to mark the way, but could not find it. (7)
When Jeremiah learned of it, he rebuked them and
declared, “The place shall remain unknown until God
gathers his people together again and shows his mercy.
(8) Then the Lord will disclose these things, and the
glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, as they
were shown in the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked
that the place should be specially consecrated.”
Thus, contrary to Jeremiah 3, the Ark was not lost forever
but will appear again at the end of the present time when
Yhwh will gather his people (Römer 2019a).
As is evidenced by Chronicles, there continued to be
an interest in the Ark at the end of the Persian period, and
well into Hellenistic times. This interest can be seen in
some of the Qumran texts, where the Ark appears in
manuscripts and rewritings of the Hebrew Bible
(sometimes with qualifications that differ from the
Masoretic Text), as well as in sectarian texts. For example,
4Q375 (“The Apocryphon of Moses”), in which it is said
that a priest, in order to decide whether or not someone
is a true prophet or false prophet, “[shall approach] the
ark of the testimony and shall seek [all the laws of] Yhwh
concerning all [… what have been hid]den from you.”
According to this text, it appears as if the Ark contains
the nistarôt, the hidden things. The author of this passage
apparently alludes to the capacity of the High Priest to
interpret the Law by approaching the Ark.
The Damascus Document also contains a passage
about the Ark of the Covenant:
(1) And those who entered the ark (htbh) went two by
two into the ark. And of the prince it is written, (2) ‘Let
him not multiply wives for himself.’ And David did not
read the sealed book of the Torah which (3) was in the
Ark (ʾarôn), for it was not opened in Israel since the
day of the death of Eleazar (4) (and Jehoshua) and
288 thomas römer
Joshua and the elders. They worshipped the Astoreth,
and that which had been revealed was hidden (5) until
Zadok arose, so David’s works were accepted, with the
exception of Uriah’s blood. (6) And God forgave him
for them. And they continuously polluted the sanctuary
by not (7) separating according to the Torah, and they
habitually lay with a woman who sees blood of flowing;
(8) each one his brother’s daughter or sister’s daughter.
(DD Col. 5)13
The passage about David is an insert into an older text
that spoke about the three “nets” of the sons of Belial
(Col 4:15): lack of chastity or “prostitution,” arrogance
and defilement of the sanctuary. 4:20–5:2a present the
case of “prostitution” by giving examples of monogamy,
and 5:6b–8 speaks of the defilement of the sanctuary by
taking up sexual taboos from Leviticus 18. The insertion
of the passage is triggered by the quotation of
Deuteronomy 17:17 in 5:2a. David did not respect the
divine law according to which the king should not have
many wives. The 5:2b–6a passage explains this fault of
David by referring to his lack of access to the divine law,
which was sealed from the time after the death of Joshua
and Eleazar until the arrival of the priest Zadok. According
to this perspective, the Ark contained not only the tablets
of the Law, but the whole divine law (the Pentateuch).
The origin of this idea can be found at the end of Joshua
24 according to the Septuagint (Rofé 1982), which has
no parallel in the Masoretic Text, and which mentions
many elements that also appear in the Damascus
Document Col. 5:
Josh 24 (LXX): 33 And it happened after these things
that Eleazar, son of Aaron, the high priest dies and was
buried… (33a) on that day the sons of Israel took the ark
13. Translation according to Charlesworth 1995, with some modifications.
of God and carried it around in their midst. And Phineas
served as a priest in the place of Eleazar his father until
he died … (33b) And the sons of Israel departed each to
their place and to their own city. And the sons of Israel
worshipped Astarte and Astarioth and the gods of the
nations around them... (Josh 24 [LXX]: 33)
The Hebrew Vorlage of this passage was probably known
to the redactor who inserted the passage about David into
the Damascus Document. He interpreted the events and
the reference to the Ark in Joshua 24 in the sense that the
Law must have remained sealed in the Ark since worship
of other gods had been rife during the time of the Judges.
The period in which the Law had been hidden in the scroll
comes to an end with Zadok, who according to 1
Chronicles 15 is one of the agents who transported the
Ark to Jerusalem. David is therefore excused for his
polygamy, and the Ark has received a new function—it
is the container for the whole law which had remained
sealed during the times of apostasy.
Conclusion
The story of the Ark does not end in Qumran. Many new
speculations about its disappearance and the place where
it was hidden came to the fore in the following centuries.
What I hope to have shown in this short presentation is
that the origins of the biblical discourse about the Ark
can be found in the so-called Ark Narrative that in its
original form ended in 1 Samuel 7:1. That means that the
place of Kiriath-Jearim was probably much more
important than the biblical redactors want us to believe.
Only in a later stage was the Ark introduced into the
conquest narrative. Its transformation into the box
containing the tablets of the Law is an even later invention.
 the origin, function and disappearance of the ark of the covenant
REFERENCES
Achenbach, R. 2003. Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur
Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von
Hexateuch und Pentateuch (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für
Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 3).
Wiesbaden.
Auld, A.G. 2011. I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament
Library). Louisville.
Bieberstein, K. 1995. Josua-Jordan-Jericho. Archäologie,
Geschichte und Theologie der Landnahmeerzählungen Josua
1–6 (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 143). Freiburg and
Göttingen.
Charlesworth, J.H. 1995. Book The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek texts with English translations. Vol.
2, Damascus document, War Scroll, and related documents.
Tübingen and Louisville, KY.
Delcor, M. 1964. Jahweh et Dagon (ou le Jahwisme face à la
religion des Philistins, d’après 1 Sam. V). Vetus Testamentum
14: 136–154.
Dietrich, W. 2010. 1 Samuel 1–12 (Biblischer Kommentar, Altes
Testament VIII/1). Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Dietrich, W. and Naumann, T. 1995. Die Samuelbücher (Erträge
der Forschung 287). Darmstadt.
Edenburg, C. 2016. Dismembering the Whole: Composition and
Purpose of Judges 19–21 (Ancient Israel Literature 24).
Atlanta.
Finkelstein, I. 1992. Seilun, Khirbet. Anchor Bible Dictionary 5:
1069–1072.
Finkelstein, I. and Römer, T. 2016. Early North Israelite
“Memories” of Moab. In: Gertz, J.C., Levinson, B.M.,
Rom-Shiloni, D. and Schmid, K., eds. The Formation of
the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe,
Israel and North America (Forschungen zum Alten
Testament 111). Tübingen: 711–728.
Finkelstein, I. and Römer, T. 2019. Kiriath-jearim, Kiriath-baal/
Baalah, Gibeah: A Geographical-History Challenge. In:
Koch, I., Römer, T. and Sergi, O., eds. Writing, Rewriting
and Overwriting in the Books of Deuteronomy and the
Former Prophets, Essays in Honour of Cynthia Edenburg
(Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium
304). Leuven, Paris and Bristol, CT: 211–222.
Finkelstein, I. and Römer, T. 2020. The Historical and
Archaeological Background behind the Old Israelite Ark
Narrative. Biblica 101: 161–185.
289
Gressmann, H. 1920. Die Lade Jahves und das Allerheiligste des
salomonischen Tempels (Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom
Alten Testament 26). Stuttgart.
Hossfeld, F.L. and Zenger, E. 2000. Psalmen 51–100 (Herders
Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament). Freiburg,
Basel and Vienna.
Hurowitz, V.A. 1992. I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple
Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and
Northwest Semitic Writings (Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament Supplementary Series 115). Sheffield.
Jeon, J. 2015. The Zadokites in the Wilderness: The Rebellion of
Korach (Num 16) and the Zadokite Redaction. Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 127: 381–411.
Jonker, L.C. 2015. “The Ark of the Covenant of the LORD”: The
Place of Covenant in the Chronicler’s Theology. In: Bautch,
R.J. and Knoppers, G.N., eds. Covenant in the Persian
Period. From Genesis to Chronicles. Winona Lake:
409–429.
Klein, R.W. 2006. 1 Chronicles: A Commentary (Hermeneia).
Minneapolis.
Knauf, E.A. 2008. Josua (Zürcher Bibelkommentare. Altes
Testament 6). Zürich.
Levin, C. 1993. Der Jahwist (Forschungen zur Religion und
Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 157). Göttingen.
Luckenbill, D.D. 1924. The Annals of Sennacherib (The University
of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 2). Chicago.
Maier, J. 1965. Das altisraelitische Ladeheiligtum (Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 93).
Berlin.
Miller, P.D. and Roberts, J.J.M. 1977. The Hand of the Lord. A
Reassessment of the “Ark Narrative” of 1 Samuel. Baltimore
and London.
Porzig, P. 2009. Die Lade Jahwes im Alten Testament und in den
Texten vom Toten Meer (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 397). Berlin.
Rofé, A. 1982. The End of the Book of Joshua according to the
Septuagint. Henoch 4: 17–36.
Römer, T. 2007. Israel’s Sojourn in the Wilderness and the
Construction of the Book of Numbers. In: Rezetko, R., Lim,
T.H. and Aucker, W.B., eds. Reflection and Refraction:
Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme
Auld (Vetus Testamentum Supplement 113). Leiden and
Boston: 419–445.
290 thomas römer
Römer, T. 2015. The Invention of God. Cambridge and London.
Römer, T. 2017. Le lieu unique choisi par YHWH et la pluralité
des temples dans l’idéologie deuteronomiste (Judaïsme
Ancien-Ancient Judaism 5). Turnhout.
Römer, T. 2019a. Jeremiah and the Ark. In: West, J. and Lemche,
N.P., eds. Jeremiah in History and Tradition (Copenhagen
International Seminar). London and New York: 60–70.
Römer, T. 2019b. Katastrophengeschichte oder Kultgründungs-
legende? Gedanken zur Funktion der ursprünglichen
Ladeerzählung. In: Krause, J.J., Oswald, W. and Weingart,
K., eds. Eigensinn und Entstehung der Hebräischen Bibel:
Erhard Blum zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (Forschungen zum
Alten Testament 136). Tübingen: 259–274.
Römer, T. 2020a. Les rôles et fonctions de l’Arche dans la
Bible hébraïque. In: Béré, P., ed. Carrefour des
Exégètes: Mélanges en hommage à Monsieur le Cardinal
Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya à l’occasion de ses 80 ans
(1939-2019) (Kitabu na Neno 1). Abidjan and Rome:
205–234.
Römer, T. 2020b. Jeroboam II and the Invention of Northern
Sanctuaries and Foundation Stories. In: Dubovsky, P. and
Giuntoli, F., eds. Stones, Tablets, and Scrolls. Periods of
the Formation of the Bible (Archaeology and Bible 3).
Tübingen: 127–140.
Römer, T. 2021. The Relationship between the Philistines and
the Israelites in the Ark Narrative. In: Lemos, T.M.,
Rosennblum, J.D., Stern, K.B. and Ballentine, D.S., eds.
With the Loyal You Show Yourself Loyal, Essays on
Relationships in the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Saul M.
Olyan (Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and
Its Literature 42). Atlanta: 235–248.
Rost, L. 1926. Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids
(Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament
42). Stuttgart.
Rudolph, W. 1938. Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Josua (Beihefte
zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 68).
Berlin.
Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C. 1995. Beobachtungen zur Lade-geschichte
und zur Komposition der Samuelbücher. In: Hardmeier, C.,
Kessler, R. and Ruwe, A., eds. Freiheit und Recht (Festschrift
für Frank Crüsemann). Gütersloh: 323–338.
Schicklberger, F. 1973. Die Ladeerzählungen des ersten Samuel-
Buches: eine literaturwissenschaftliche und theologie-
geschichtliche Untersuchung (Forschung zur Bibel 7).
Würzburg.
Seebass, H. 2002. Numeri. 2. Teilband. Numeri 10,11–22,1 (Biblischer
Kommentar Altes Testament IV/2.1–5). Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Seow, C.L. 1989. Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance
(Harvard Semitic Monographs 44). Atlanta.
Streck, M. 1916. Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis
zum Untergange Niniveh’s (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 7).
Leipzig.
Tov, E. 2015. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical
Research. Winona Lake.
Wellhausen, J. 1899. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. Berlin.