To be honest, I had forgotten about the exchange. Thank you for the slack. I shall again concede the point, as I likely will be unable to find any valid sources re: "professor and his students". Re: Erich von Daniken, I have read his stuff, and found that it is bullshit, to be blunt. I have several of his books. I regret that I spent hard cash for them, but, well, we all do dumb things. I thought he might actually have a point or two to make, and I had heard he had some interesting theories.
Well, he DOES have some interesting theories. But not in a good way. The guy's a total schmuck. He's got his head so far up his own ass that he can taste his own breakfast when it comes out round teatime in his bowel movement. The worst part is, he's actually become a multi-fucking millionaire. I was willing to cut the guy some slack and give his ideas a chance as one of my threads here, entitled "Erich von Daniken", will indicate. But he is just an alter kacker of the truest kind.
I'm always willing to look at sources that other people might overlook, or not give a chance, but for fuck's sake, you can't compromise basic academic integrity. Von Daniken is just an asshole. I mean, for one whole section of the book, he quotes (or rather, misquotes) The Book of Mormon from hell to breakfast.
One, The Book of Mormon is not accepted as a viable source by any academic person outside of BYU. I mean, seriously. Even if one does not accept belief in God, one can still use the Bible for its historical relevance, even if one questions how accurate it is. At least Jericho, for example, whether or not it had walls around it, and whether they fell down or not, was a city that existed (and still does, incidentally). Zarahemla was not, and is not, and never was. But to misquote the book is even worse!
I've read The Book of Mormon three times, and find it rather humourous, frankly. But that's beside the point. The fact that he would use it as a valid source tells you all you need to know about his skills as an academic. I remember when I was an up-and-coming academic myself, I asked a colleague, who taught Native American History (I then was an Adjunct teaching American History and World History), what she thought of The Book of Mormon. The look I got in response was more than enough. She didn't have to actually SAY anything at all.
So, back to the Ark of the Covenant. The Bible tells us that it was a device that Moses used to communicate directly with God. It tells us further that it could kill a person just because said person touched it. It says further that the army that marched with it was more or less invincible. Unfortunately, it does NOT indicate HOW any of this worked. It would take Lucasfilm to come up with all that.
So, von Daniken thinks that the Ark was a Leyden Jar. That seems a little odd. I mean, the Leyden Jar was certainly a fascinating invention in the 18th Century, by the standard of the time, and was created by an admittedly brilliant German scholar/clergyman. But one would think that GOD, I mean, seriously, we're talking about GOD here, one would think that God would have better ideas than an 18th Century invention by a German clergyman, no matter how brilliant.
I personally don't claim to know what the Hell the Ark was or is. I believe that if and when it is found (assuming it still exists), then we all stand to be a bit surprised, whether we are faithful Jews, or Lucasfilm execs. Personally, I think it does still exist, but that is possibly just wishful thinking on my part. Who knows?
But what is the thing? Maybe in biblical days it was what the Bible says it was. And maybe now, if we found it, it would be exactly those things again. On the other hand, our Rabbis have said, "After Malachi, the Prophecy went out of Israel". Will the return of the Ark indicate the coming of the Messiah and the Return of the Prophecy to Israel? Then I expect the Ark would BE those things again. But maybe the coming of Messiah will be only the fulfillment of prophecy and not the return thereof. In which case, the finding of the Ark might just be the finding of a very pretty and rather useless box, relevant for historical purposes only (granted, it would still hold, presumably, the Ten Commandments carved by God, so that would be interesting in and of itself, to get God's handwriting), so there you are.