Page 61 - BV4

lishers, 1992) records wide-ranging research, exten- what is clearly stated in the Scriptures, and substitutes
sive travels, and the numerous personal interviews in- unjustifiable theories.
volved in his quest. I'm able to vouch for the accuracy
of much of his historical data, but not always for how My aim here, however, is to appraise the validity of
he interprets the information -- his imaginative string- Hancock's amazingly complex case for his conviction
ing of the beads. The reader must examine his complex about the survival and present resting place of the Ark.
patchwork, his relentless pursuit of each new lead, It is not, he concludes, buried under the Temple Mount
each sudden hunch, his constantly evolving hypothesis. at Jerusalem nor off on Mount Nebo, as stated in the
Hancock has thoroughly convinced himself, at least, apocryphal book of 2 Maccabees. It is safely housed in
that Moses' Ark, fashioned in the Sinai wilderness, now northern Ethiopia.
resides hidden from popular gaze in a small chapel at
Axum, ancient capital of the Christian Ethiopian Em- Strong Points in Hancock's Arguments
pire, in the northern province of Tigray.

It is in Graham Hancock's favor that he doggedly pur-
Do I agree with Graham Hancock? I cannot lightly dis- sued every lead he found -- by thought, word of mouth,
miss either the ancient and revered claims of my or through reading. He appears utterly relentless in
Ethiopian friends or much of what the Englishman has checking and rechecking any aspect of history with
discovered in his arduous search. He has lived and trav- even the faintest application to his search. As we shall
elled extensively in the regions of which he writes. He see, however, he does tend to jump rather quickly to
has interviewed many sincere and convincing wit- conclusions, often building into his case a series of
nesses, whose stories (even about the remote past) vague possibilities, if they but lean in the right
share a consistency with other known facts that helps direction.
them ring true in his mind. His Ethiopian friends, as
mine, have known from childhood the story of how the
Ark came to Ethiopia from Solomon's Temple. Their There are, nevertheless, at least two undeniably strong
version has to do with an intimacy between King Solo- points in Hancock's favor: (1) the existence in Ethiopia
mon and the Queen of Sheba that provided Ethiopia from time immemorial of the "Black Jews" or Falashas,
with a Solomonic line of monarchs. It maintains that along with a sobgroup called Qemant, and (2) the pres-
Menelik I, a son of Solomon and the Queen, fell heir to ence in every Ethiopian Orthodox Church of a tabot --
the Ark of the Covenant upon visiting Jerusalem at age an "ark," a (small) cloth-covered structure replicating
20. perhaps the tables of the law inside the Ark.

As we shall see, Hancock seizes upon a different the- The Black Jews
ory as to when and how the Ark may have migrated to
the Horn of Africa, one that indeed sounds historically The Falashas became newsworthy in recent years, due
feasible. We must admit that claiming the Ark exists to their being airlifted to Israel. This took place at first
today in Ethiopia is not so preposterous as it would from the refugee camps in the Sudan, where Falashas
seem, at first, to the uninformed. Hancock's case de- and others fled the Communist government's resettle-
serves a fair hearing. ment program, and later by actual agreement with the
weakening Addis Ababa regime.
With all that, do not assume I am satisfied with all that
Hancock has written. A literary comparison with author The Israeli "Law of Return," granting automatic citizen-
James Michener may help. Both men did extensive re- ship to any Jew, was not extended to the Black Jews of
search and have written long, informative books. But Ethiopia until they were recognized, first by the Se-
both reveal a religious skepticism and naturalistic bias phardic Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, in 1973, then by the
in matters of theology, church history, and Bible con- Ashkenazi Rabbi in 1975. This delay is attributed to
tent. They readily deny or reinterpret what is actually certain "irregularities" in Falasha practices. Not only
said in Scripture. Graham Hancock, as I see it, is at his do they use an Ethiopic (ge'ez) Torah, rather than He-
worst when he tries to tell us who and what Moses was brew, but they still practice animal sacrifice. Strict ob-
and what was the nature of the Ark of the Covenant -- servers of Mosaic dietary laws, along with practice of
its purpose, supposed powers, and how he thinks it was eighth-day circumcision, they still had no awareness of
utilized by Moses and others. He ignores or rejects the existence of Purim and Hanukkah. While to Israeli

61