THE ARK OF THE COVENANT EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE ETHIOPIAN TRADITIONS DR BERNARD LEEMAN www.queen-of-sheba-university.org August 2010 CONTENTS Page The Ark of the Covenant 1 Appendix A 1. The Jewish Torah 13 2. The Israelite Torah According to the Sheba-Menelik Cycle 15 Appendix B Comparison of events during the Queen of Sheba’s visit to King Solomon 18 Appendix C Ge’ez transcript of sections of the Sheba-Menelik Cycle of the Kebra 19 Nagast concerning the route of the Ark of the Covenant from Jerusalem to Ethiopia Ge’ez text of Chapter 53 of the Kebra Nagast 20 Ge’ez text of Chapter 55 of the Kebra Nagast 23 Ge’ez text of Chapter 58of the Kebra Nagast 26 Ge’ez text of Chapter 59 of the Kebra Nagast 28 Transliterated and translated Chapter 53 [first section] 30 Transliterated and translated Chapter 55 [extracts] 30 Transliterated and translated Chapter 58 [sentence four onwards] 31 Transliterated and translated Chapter 59 [first section] 33 BIBLIOGRAPHY 34 ILLUSTRATIONS Map 1: The geography of Menelik’s route according to the Kebra Nagast 11 with Jerusalem in Palestine and Msr/Msrm translated to mean Egypt Map 2: The geography of the movements of the Ark of the Covenant 12 according to the Salibi hypothesis Photo of the oldest known inscription mentioning the Hebrew people 38 Map 3: True location of the Old Testament pre-586 B.C.? 39 Picture of Xi Wang Mu, the Chinese Queen of Sheba? 40 THE ARK OF THE COVENANT Until the twentieth century it was generally accepted that the events described in the Biblical Old Testament before the Babylonian captivity (ca.586 B.C.) occurred in the area of modern Israel, Palestine, Egypt, and Iraq (Babylon). Abraham was supposed to have come from Ur in Mesopotamia, the Hebrews held captive in Egypt, the Exodus to have taken place in the Sinai peninsular and Joshua’s invasion launched across the River Jordan. When professional archaeologists commenced digging in the Holy Land in 1920 they fully expected to uncover evidence of the Exodus, the destruction of Canaanite cities, the establishment of Israelite kingdoms, large public works undertaken by King Solomon and King Omri, the 722-1 B.C. Assyrian destruction of Israel, and the 587-586 B.C. Babylonian conquest of Judah and the destruction of Jerusalem. However doubts emerged among archaeologists in the 1960’s [Kenyon] that escalated in the 1970’s [Pritchard] and finally developed in the 1990’s and at the turn of the twenty-first century into outright dismissal of the pre-586 B.C. Biblical account [Finkelstein, Herzog, Lemche, Sand, Silberman, Thompson, Van Seter, Whitelam]. Today leading so called “minimalist” Israeli, American, British, and Danish-based archaeologists believe that Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon never existed and the pre-Babylonian captivity narrative was either fantasy or highly exaggerated. Their opinions are opposed by “maximalist” often faith-based scholars and archaeologists [Bright, Dever, A. Mazar, B. Mazar]. The issue is very controversial because many observers interpret the minimalist hypothesis as undermining the raison d’être of the State of Israel. In the nineteenth century a number of writers and academics [Dozy et al 1] suggested that Arabia, not Palestine, may have been the true location of the pre-586 B.C. events described in the Old Testament. Other researchers added to this hypothesis in the first half of the twentieth century, postulating that the rise of Islam may have been deeply influenced by close contact with a long established local Judaic community [Margoliouth, Montgomery, Torrey]. In 1985 the debate became extremely heated following the publication of Professor Kamal Salibi’s book The Bible came from Arabia. Salibi based his findings on Arab traditions and place names in Asir, Hijaz and Jizan provinces of present Saudi Arabia and concluded that Ancient Israel and Judah prior to 586 B.C. were in West Arabia spanning territory from north of Medina to Yemen. While incensing the maximalists, Salibi’s work was also condemned by Saudi Arabia, which believed he was suggesting that Israel had a divine right to annex its western provinces of Hijaz, Asir and Jizan. Interestingly Salibi received no support from the minimalists, one of whom (Silberman) privately implied to this writer that it was safer to deny the historical record than suggest it was true but located in West Arabia. 1 C. T. Beke, T. K Cheyne, Reinhart Pieter Dozy, Heinrich Graetz, F. Hommel, W. V. Kelly, H. Ooort, A. H. Sayce, N. Schmidt, J. Taylor, J. Wilson, and H. Winckler 2 The solution to the divide in Old Testament archaeology appears to rest in ancient Ethiopian traditions, inscriptions and documents concerning the Ark of the Covenant, the most revered possession of the Hebrew people. The Beta Israel (“Black Jews of Ethiopia”) and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church believe the Ark was brought to Ethiopia in about 950 B.C. by Menelik, son of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. This booklet argues that the story is true. The Hebrew Old Testament is silent on the fate of the Ark of the Covenant but the second century B.C. Second Book of Maccabees states it was hidden at Mt Nebo during the Babylonian invasion and destruction of 587-586 B.C. Traditions from Arabia, where arks were still being carried into battle in the 1920’s A.D. [Grierson and Munro-Hay:176-194, 244a] say the Arabs captured it from the Israelites in battle and it was flung on a dunghill [Parfitt 2008:213] The most detailed account of what happened to the Ark is contained in the Ge’ez (Ancient Ethiopic) epic Kebra Nagast (Glory of the Kings). The Kebra Nagast was complied in about A.D. 1314 in Aksum. It consists of two intertwined main documents of roughly equal length and a short conclusion. The earliest part is a totally Israelite (i.e. pre- 586 B.C.) document known as the Sheba-Menelik Cycle and appears to have been originally recorded in Solomon’s reign. The second part, the Caleb Cycle, was probably written in about A.D. 520 on the eve of the Christian invasion of Jewish Yemen [Shahid 1976; Leeman 2005, 2009]. A thorough study of the literary sources of the Kebra Nagast was undertaken in a 1956 doctoral thesis at St Andrew’s University Scotland by the late David Hubbard, who became principal of Fuller Theological College in California. Hubbard agreed with many earlier researchers that the Sheba-Menelik Cycle had been translated into Ge’ez from Arabic not from Coptic as the compilers claimed. The Cycle begins with the account of the visit of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon’s capital of Jerusalem. The queen stays several months and just before she leaves Solomon insidiously tricks her into bearing his child, knowing that this will cause her to lose the right to rule in Yemen. The queen gives birth to her son Menelik on the bank of the Mai Bela stream in what is now Eritrea (“her mother’s country”) and remains queen of her African possessions with a capital at Aksum. When Menelik comes of age he insists his mother names his father as he is tired of his friends’ taunting. Eventually he receives the queen’s approval to visit Solomon. Solomon is delighted with Menelik and when Menelik declines his offer to stay in Jerusalem Solomon makes arrangements for the establishment of a client Israelite state in Ethiopia administered by the eldest sons of the hierarchy of Solomon’s kingdom. The eldest sons of the ruling elite led by Azariah, son of Zadok the high priest, are not happy with this arrangement and take steps to steal the Ark of the Covenant to sustain them in their new land. Azariah drugs the celebrants at the farewell dinner and enters the temple through a secret door removing the Ark from under its silk covering and replacing it with a wooden structure. 3 Menelik is oblivious to the theft and it is only after his party has travelled some way from Jerusalem that Azariah reveals the Ark. Menelik is shocked but then assents to the theft. The party races for Ethiopia. Meanwhile Solomon is reminiscing with Zadok but his account of a dream in which he saw the Sun move from Judah to Ethiopia alerts Zadok, who rushes to the Temple and finds the Ark gone. Solomon orders an immediate pursuit but by the time his troops reach the coast, Menelik “has crossed to Ethiopia opposite Mt Sinai” (sic). The Queen of Sheba agrees to rule jointly with Menelik. Dual monarchies in Aksum were still common in the Christian era. At length the queen abdicates and allows Menelik to rule alone over a mixed population of Sabaeans, Ethiopians and Israelites. The religion is officially Israelite, centred on the Ark of the Covenant (tabot) and the Law of Moses (orit). The state is regarded as the new Zion. The Sheba-Menelik Cycle states that Menelik expanded his territory. Traditions from Tanzania and the Comoros islands respectively state that Menelik died and was buried in the crater of Mt. Kilimanjaro2 [Tanganyika Times 10 February 1928] and that Edomites stole the throne of Solomon and placed it in the crater of Mt. Katala [Prosperi 1957:142-3]. The Sheba-Menelik Cycle only describes events before 925 B.C. so it mentions neither Solomon’s death nor the breakup of his kingdom. The Old Testament Book of Kings and Josephus’s History of the Jews have accounts of the Queen of Sheba’s visit to King Solomon both of which appear to be summaries of the Sheba-Menelik narrative except they say nothing of events after the queen’s departure, such as the birth of Menelik, his visit to Jerusalem and the theft of the Ark. The Islamic Qur’an account differs in that it tells the story from Solomon’s perspective [see Appendix B]. The Evidence The most important inscriptional evidence supporting the Sheba-Menelik Cycle is found on two of three Sabaean incense burners [photo, page 37] kept in the Church of Abun Garima at Adi Kaweh, a hilltop village eight kilometers south-west of Wukro, near Mekele in Ethiopia [Schneider 1973; Leeman 2009]. The church is sited on a much older structure, most probably a major Sabaean temple, because the two larger incense burners were found a short distance respectively at and below two other hill top Sabaean structures to the east and west of Adi Kaweh. The eastern site is the alleged burial place of Queen Yodit, the pagan-Hebraic leader who destroyed Aksum in the 10th century A.D., and also the location of ca.800 B.C. Sabaean temple in the process of excavation [Leeman 2009]. The Sabaean inscriptions state that the area was part of the realm of D’mt and was ruled by four named high kings and kings of Sheba 2 Kilimanjaro’s crater was known to the Ethiopians before it was rediscovered by the Ashira Marangu army scout Kinyala Johannes Lauwo (1871-1996 [sic]) in the 1880’s and “officially” by Hans Meyer and Ludwig Purtscheller in 1889. Lauwo climbed the peak nine times before he realised there was a crater. He served as guide for the Meyer and Purtscheller’s 1889 first successful European ascent. Johannes Notch is named after him. www.ntz.info/gen/n00398.html. Leeman video interview with Kinyala Lauwo, Ashira 1993 4 and D’mt, three of whom ruled with unnamed high queens and queens of Sheba3 over a mixed population of red (Semitic) Sabaeans and black (Cushitic)’BR (Hebrew) [Schneider 1973, Fattovich 1990].4 The inscriptions are the work of professional stone masons from Marib (Yemen) and indicate that the Sabaeans were at that time making a major effort to dominate the area while cooperating in conjunction with the local (probably Cushitic) population [Durrani:122] It is generally assumed that the realm of D’mt with a major centre at Yeha, the site of a huge Sabaean temple, gave way to Aksum around the first century B.C. but this is not absolutely certain and the D’mt realm may have lasted until Queen Yodit’s time (she was queen of “Damot” ca. A.D. 970). The Adi Kaweh inscriptions therefore support the story that a mixed population of Sabaeans and Hebrew (Israelites) was ruled jointly by kings and queens of Sheba in northern Ethiopia one hundred and twenty five years after Solomon’s death and probably much earlier. The inscriptions at Adi Kaweh are the oldest mention of the Hebrew people. The next piece of information concerns ancient Hebrew-Israelite populations, traditions, religious practices and customs in Ethiopia, Somalia and Eritrea. Until most were evacuated to Israel in the late 1980’s Ethiopia possessed a large population of Beta Israel (“Black Jews”, “Falasha”). They are the only “Judaic” group to contain Nazarites (like Samson). In addition there are many Ethiopians who claim they are Israelite in origin but converted to Christianity. These are known as “Falasha Mura.” Next are the Qemant, who practise a religion described as “pagan-Hebraic” [Gamst]; and the Yibir/Ibro (“Hebrew”), a landless Agaw serf caste in Somaliland, who are nominally Muslim but traditionally are despised and partly feared as being pagan- Hebraic sorcerers [Kirk 1905:184, Farah 2006:6, Leeman 2005, 2009]. In addition there is a group in Eritrea associated with the traditional landowning aristocracy of Hamasien and the present leadership of the Eritrean government known as “Latos” or “Mai Bela.” Because they are so secretive, no more than a paragraph has been published about them. The Israelis recognise them as Jews but they seem to a mixture of Israelites and Christians, a sort of Judeo-Christian group with a headquarters at Himberti, priests called kes and holy places called kansha [from kanisa meaning a church]. Outsiders call them Latos, from Pilatos (Pontius Pilate = Christ killer). They call themselves Mai Bela, from the river bank where Menelik was born [Leeman 2005, 2009]. Besides the pagan-Hebraic and Israelite groups there are the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians themselves who retain ancient Judaic practices and other elements, some of which are no longer associated with “main stream” Judaism. The chief authority on Hebraic influences in Ethiopia is Professor Edward Ullendorff [1920 - ], who 3 Despite continuing protests Wikipedia refuses to alter its erroneous statement in its D’MT entry that a work by Nadia Durrani [2005] names the queens 4 Neither of these “maximalist” authorities translated ’BR (Hebrew) although the discovery of the word near or in modern Israel would have caused enormous interest. See excitement over similar words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habiru 5 supervised David Hubbard’s thesis on the Kebra Nagast but unfortunately published his own work with untranslated important quotations from many dead and living languages (e.g. Syriac, Ge’ez, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Portuguese). Despite this, Ullendorff [1956, 1968] concludes that the Hebraic and First Temple Israelite influences in Ethiopia are very ancient while the Lebanese historian Kamal Salibi [1998b:62-63] suggests that a form of Israelite religion (“Nazarene”) associated with exiles who fled to Yemen from the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem was influential at the court of Aksum from about 586 BC to A.D. 332 and this faith was incorporated into Christianity in the fourth century A.D. to accommodate the tradition that Aksum was the True Zion as well as the keeper of the True Faith (Monophysite Christianity). Others argue that Monophysite Christianity around Antioch, Alexandria, and Byzantium/Constantinople had itself incorporated Jewish practices from the “Greeks” (Hellenised Jews) who formed the nucleus of early Christianity. Whatever the reason Ethiopian Christianity has a significant element of First Temple Israelite religion within it and some clerics such as Ewostatewos (ca.1273-1352) at Debra Bizen in Eritrea went into exile rather than accept a ban on “Jewish” practices, which is why both Saturday and Sunday are still respected as holy days [Tamrat 1977, Beylot 1995]. Ullendorff believes that maybe half of Ethiopia’s population was Israelite when Christianity was introduced. In areas such as Agame (where people still endure the insult “Yehud”) in northern Ethiopia and in Hamasien in Eritrea mass acceptance of Christianity has allegedly been fairly recent but the Latos/Mai Bela have chosen western churches instead of the Orthodox [Leeman 2005:185-6] and totally ignore Asmara’s Italian synagogue. Fourth is the Ge’ez word for the Ark of the Covenant – “tabot.” There are two main authorities on this word. The first, Theodore Nöldeke (1836-1930) was so confused by the word that he termed it an “atrocious monstrosity” [Nöldeke 1860:211] because in his view the word should not exist because it had somehow come to Ethiopia during Solomon’s time. The second scholar, Chaim Rabin (1915-1996), was also deeply perplexed by the word. He concluded that the word was indeed ancient and had come from the Medina area of Arabia during Solomon’s era [Rabin 1951:109]. Fifth, the Hebrew Old Testament and Jewish traditions do not record how the Ark of the Covenant vanished. Nor do they explain why Azariah the high priest of Judah (the Sheba-Menelik Cycle identifies him as the son of the high priest) disappeared and his Zadokite priesthood only reappeared three hundred years later [Benjamin Mazar: 1992:98]. The Sheba-Menelik Cycle is the only document that details the reasons. Sixth, the Sheba-Menelik Cycle contains the Torah/Orit (Law of Moses) that must have existed during the time of King Solomon [Leeman 2005, 2009]. It is certainly much older than the Torah in the “official” Old Testament because it omits the major part of the Laws of Deuteronomy, the Biblical book that authorities agree was compiled in the reign of Josiah (ca. 640-609 B.C.) during the high priesthood of 6 Hilkiah [Wright, 1996:6]. Hubbard noted that the Sheba-Menelik Cycle contains variants of the Old Testament whereas the Old Testament quotations in the Caleb Cycle adhere to the Christian era “official” Ge’ez version of the Old Testament. The Sheba-Menelik Cycle contains the Holiness Code [Leviticus 17-26], which Biblical Scholars agree is one of the oldest parts of the Old Testament. Next, the German missionary Johann Martin Flad [1831-1915], noted that the Beta Israel, the First Temple Israelite Cushitic population of Ethiopia who have now mostly adopted Semitic Tigrinya and Amharic, recited Hebrew prayers in Agaw, although most no longer understood the meaning [Flad 1869; Leslau 1951:xxi]. In summarising the above evidence it seems that at the very least Ethiopia has an ancient association with the Israelite First Temple and a culture obsessed even today with the Ark of the Covenant reflecting the ancient existence of an Israelite state that eventually nearly obliterated the Christian state of Aksum under its pagan-Hebraic Queen Yodit ca. A.D. 970. It appears impossible to accept relatively recent writers’ contentions [Hancock, Kaplan, Quiran, Shelemay] that the Beta Israel adopted a syncretic form of Judaism from ca 500-400 B.C. Aramaic speaking Israelite troops at Elephantine (Aswan in Egypt) on the Nile or affected it in medieval times to distance themselves from their Semitic-speaking Christian overlords and escape imperial taxation. There is much more. Ironically it is the seemingly ludicrous geographical references in the Sheba-Menelik Cycle that convincingly demonstrate that the Ark was indeed stolen from Jerusalem and brought to Ethiopia three thousand years ago and this leads to far greater issue of immense implications that most Biblical scholars will not even mention. Ethiopia is right, Israel is wrong Millions of dollars fund Old Testament research in the Holy Land (Palestine and Modern Israel). Although the Beta Israel are Africa’s most studied people, Ethiopian studies receive very little funding. Even the Wukro I site at Adi Kaweh, which may prove to be one of Biblical archaeology’s most important sites, is being excavated by a “maximalist” German team. William Dever, who ridiculed Salibi, has received over a million dollars of archaeological funding but has never once made any investigation of the origins of Arabian Judaism [Leeman 2005:149] which, as Torrey observed, is seemingly illogical because most Arabian Jews were historically located in the Yemen and their numbers diminished towards Palestine, whereas it would be more reasonable to expect the opposite should be true [Torrey1967:21]. Although Old Testament scholars ignored or vilified Salibi, his hypothesis, as Mazrui noted, appears to support the Sheba-Menelik Cycle’s narrative as well as solving issues concerning Arabian Judaism. In his 1951 publication Ancient West Arabian, Chaim Rabin noted that there was a large amount of Hebrew vocabulary and grammar in the dialects of West Arabia. He could offer no explanation for the “surprising similarities and parallelisms of West Arabian with Canaanite” [Rabin:2- 7 3]5 and concluded, “This is not the place to work out the historical implications of this, especially as it affects the darkest part of Arab history” [Rabin:199]. Fascinatingly, these dialects were in exactly the same area that Salibi had found the place names of the Hebrew Old Testament although he himself only realised it in 2010 [email to Leeman 2 March]. Secondly there are very obvious reasons why an ancient Arabian Judah could have prospered and reached a zenith in the period 1000-925 B.C. and then lost power to Israel in Omri’s reign. Salibi placed Israel in the northern Hijaz near Medina and Judah in the south in Asir next to Yemen. Following the ca. 1200 B.C. domestication of the camel, which Arab traditions ascribe to the Hebrew, the western Arabian escarpment became an important trade route for Sabaean/Sheban gold, gemstones and incense caravans and attracted Egyptian and Assyrian imperial control. However, between about 1000-925 B.C. the Egyptians withdrew to deal with invasions by the Sea Peoples [Kitchen 2003: 99-100] while Assyria pulled back to counter the threat of Aramaean population movements near the border of what is now modern Turkey [Lipiński 2000]. These withdrawals opened the way for an opportunistic local population (e.g. the Hebrew) to seize control of the lucrative Sabaean trade and grow rich from taxing the caravans. Despite the 460 year captivity Hebrew has no Egyptian words but Rabin noted in another work that it contains trade words such as “sapphires” from India, which appears to indicate it was on a major trade route from India to Egypt [Rabin 1968]. Salibi’s work has been of vital assistance in deciphering the geography of the Sheba-Menelik Cycle and had he taken much earlier notice of the large number of emails and letters urging him to consider Rabin’s work and the Ethiopian evidence his arguments, too reliant on place names, would have probably gained much wider acceptance. Much confusion has been caused in Old Testament studies because of place names. Edward Robinson was chiefly responsible for the haphazard unscientific wildly speculative methods used to identify locations in Palestine in 1837-8 and 1852 [Leeman 2005:22]. European Jewish traditions and scholarship have also been very unreliable, being over-influenced by the drive to prove that Palestine is the Promised Land and therefore the Jewish homeland through divine will. The definitive Hebrew Old Testament was published in about A.D. 950, six hundred years after the New Testament, by the Masoretic scholars, two priestly families based in Galilee and Babylon. These scribes laboured for four hundred and fifty years to complete their task. The original Old Testament had been written only with Hebrew consonants since vowels were considered divine sounds. Languages change over time, sometimes rapidly. For example modern English speakers would find it impossible to understand the English of King Harold of Hastings let alone the Anglo-Saxon of A.D.500. The Arabic and Aramaic speaking Masoretic scholars put the vowels into the Hebrew Old Testament while admitting that in three hundred and fifty places they had no idea 5 The Hebrew adopted Canaanite as their language. 8 of the original meaning [Encyclopaedia Judaica]. Words such as MSR and MSRM were taken to mean Egypt, while KWS and KSM were equated with Ethiopia or Sudan. Salibi suggested that in some places these words refer to cities not countries. He also argued that the Jordan (H-YRDN) was not a river but the escarpment in Arabia that rises from the coastal plain to the mountain range known as the Tihama or Sarawat. Many Arab traditions support Salibi’s suggestions. For example Mecca is associated with Abraham and there is an ancient tradition the Red Sea was once blocked by a volcanic lava flow at the strait of Bab-el-Mandeb between Yemen and Eritrea which then broke causing massive death and destruction in the subsequent flood. Interestingly the word for Hebrew in Hebrew and Sabaean is not only identical (’BR) but has a second meaning in both languages of “those who crossed over” [Biella:350]. Since the Beta Israel and the Zagwe royal house have strong traditions about Moses, there is speculation that Moses’ Red Sea crossing may have been at its southern end. Support for this comes from Moses’ marriage to Zipporah, the Cushite daughter of the Prophet Jethro. Salibi places Zipporah’s home as Kush (Kshm) next to the volcanic mountain in northern Yemen named Jebel al-Nabi Shu’ayb - the mountain of the prophet Shu’ayb. Shu’ayb is Arabic for Jethro. In 1997 a team of Canadian archaeologists [Keall 1997] discovered a ring of large monoliths on the coastal plain below Jebel al-Nabi Shu’ayb dating from about 1800 B.C. (Moses’ era) and therefore, if Salibi’s Arabian location for the Exodus is true, the pillars may be the same mentioned in Exodus 24:4. Perhaps the Hebrew captivity occurred near or in Ethiopia. Whoever wrote the Sheba-Menelik Cycle was obviously not referring to a Jerusalem in Palestine. On page 11 is a map of Menelik’s journey from Jerusalem to Ethiopia with Jerusalem sited in Palestine. The account makes no sense. When Salibi’s book was published in 1985 this writer wrote to him about the strange geography of the Sheba-Menelik Cycle and asked him to send his hypothetical map of an Arabian Judah marking place names mentioned in the Ethiopian document in case the Cycle’s contents matched his hypothesis of an ancient Judah in West Arabia. Salibi replied [Letter 15 February 1987] that he was not conversant with the Sheba-Menelik Cycle but kindly sent his map. The result was sensational for it showed that the author of the Sheba-Menelik Cycle was referring to a Judah opposite Ethiopia in West Arabia not to one in Palestine. A map of Menelik’s journey from Jerusalem to Ethiopia with Jerusalem and other locations sited by Salibi in West Arabia is on page 12. Since Salibi drew his map blind to the Sheba-Menelik Cycle narrative of the journey of the Ark from Jerusalem to Ethiopia, the result is quite astonishing. It explains why the Beta Israel traditionally prayed to a Jerusalem in the east (in Arabia), not one to the north (in Palestine). It would also explain why the word “Falasha” and the word for the Beta Israel’s house of prayer are both Sabaean in origin [Biella;405; Leslau 1991:363] but most of all why Ethiopian culture is so heavily Judaic, obsessed with the Ark and drew its political legitimacy from Moses (Zagwe dynasty ca A.D. 1137-1270) and Solomon (Haile