There is a claim that when King Zedekiah was captured by the Babylonians and his sons were killed, his daughter Tamar was spared. According to the story, she traveled with the Ark—first to Egypt, then to the Iberian Peninsula, and later to what we know today as Ireland. The claim further states that she married an Irish ruler and became the famous queen from the Irish king’s list known as Tara or Tea Tephi.

Tea Tephi is said to be my ancestor according to my family tree, which makes this topic even more interesting for me to explore. Was the Ark really taken to Ireland by Zedekiah’s daughter?

We have to divide the topic into two parts:

1. Was Tara even Zedekiah’s daughter?

2. And if so, did she bring the Ark of the Covenant with her?

A 15th-century depiction of Tea Tephi’s voyage from Egypt

The idea that Zedekiah’s daughter went to Ireland is not proven and is more like a legend. The idea that she brought the Ark with her is even newer—it was first suggested much later, in the 1850s. Another supposed descendant of Tara was a Scottish king, Malcolm II, who is also connected to the English royal family. Some argue that this means the Judean kingship never ended but continued through the British monarchy and will remain until Messiah comes.

This concept is based on the scripture:

“The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” (Gen. 49:10)

At first, this idea may resonate more with Jewish belief than with Christianity, since most Christians hold that this prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus (Yeshua) was born—He was the promised Shiloh.

Christ’s genealogy through His mother’s father traces back to King David and his son Nathan, not Solomon. The genealogy presented in Matthew, however, goes through David’s son Solomon and is connected to Christ’s legal (but non-biological) father, Joseph.

Concerning Joseph’s line, the scripture says:

“Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.”
(Jer. 22:30, cf. Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:27; Luke 2:4)

This may explain why Christ’s bloodline is traced through David and Bathsheba’s second son, Nathan, instead.

Christians believe the prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus, so we do not need the royal line of Judah to continue until today. But for many Jews who reject Yeshua as Messiah, the idea of a descendant of David remaining on a throne still holds importance.

Today, the most well-known royals believed to continue the line from Tara (Tea Tephi) are the British monarchy. They are also tied to the Scandinavian monarchies. The intermarriages between the kings of Ireland, Scotland, and Scandinavia can also be traced in my own family tree, which connects to kings of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

So where does the Ark come in? As we will see, the claim that the Ark was brought to the British Isles is tied to making Britain relevant in the end-time scenario as a Judean kingdom. In the mid-1800s, a group of people believed that Messiah would rule from Britain and therefore His throne—the Ark—needed to be there. They also believed that the Anglo-Saxons were of Israelite descent.

But let us look more closely at the theory itself, and examine whether it fits—or does not fit—with the Bible. After that, we will consider the political claim and the Ark claim.

We begin with the oldest and most enduring legend in this saga: that Queen Tara of Ireland was Zedekiah’s daughter.

The story of Tara as Zedekiah’s daughter.
Another old tradition claims that Tara (Tea Tephi) was in fact the daughter of Pharaoh. She appears in the Lebor Gabála Érenn (The Book of the Taking of Ireland). In this account, Tea is said to have been an Egyptian princess from Thebes who married Erimon. So who was she really—Judean or Egyptian?
First, let us see if it is even biblically, or by other historical records, possible for the daughter of Zedekiah to have gone to Ireland.
The Bible tells us that her father, Zedekiah, first had to watch his sons—the heirs to the throne—be killed. He was then blinded and later died in captivity (2 Kings 25:7). The daughters, however, were left behind and unharmed. In Judah the royal line always passed through the male heirs, but in Egypt a woman could also rule. This meant that the daughters of the king of Judah could have carried a degree of status.

We learn from Scripture that Zedekiah did indeed have daughters, and that they were not taken to Babylon. Instead, they remained in Jerusalem under the protection of the leaders who stayed behind. The first mention of them comes when the people, against God’s clear command, decided to flee with Jeremiah to Egypt:

“But Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces, took all the remnant of Judah, that were returned from all nations, whither they had been driven, to dwell in the land of Judah; even men, and women, and children, and the king’s daughters, and every person that Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard had left with Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Jeremiah the prophet, and Baruch the son of Neriah.” (Jer. 43:5–6)

This is the only biblical reference to them, and from this point we never hear of them again—the trail ends in Egypt. The same is true for Jeremiah, whose fate is also left unrecorded.

God, however, did speak harshly against the leaders for both returning to Egypt and continuing their idol worship there. Through Jeremiah, He declared judgment on all who chose to go there:

“Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will set my face against you for evil, and to cut off all Judah. And I will take the remnant of Judah, that have set their faces to go into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, and they shall all be consumed, and fall in the land of Egypt; they shall even be consumed by the sword and by the famine: they shall die, from the least even unto the greatest… So that none of the remnant of Judah, which are gone into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, shall escape or remain, that they should return into the land of Judah, to the which they have a desire to return to dwell there: for none shall return but such as shall escape. (Jer 44:11-12 & 14)

The last verse does note that some would escape this judgment—most likely those who resisted but were forced to go, such as Jeremiah. It is unlikely that the curse applied to him, since he was compelled to go against his will. The king’s daughters, believed to be the last hope of continuing the royal line, may also have been taken by force.

Since the Bible itself says that a few would escape, it is therefore possible that one or more of the daughters survived.

Historically, what would have happened if a remnant people entered Egypt with the last royal descendants of Judah’s final king? The Bible tells us that Egypt was in great conflict with the king of Babylon himself.

Although Egypt and Jerusalem were not close allies, they shared a common enemy in Babylon. In fact, when Egypt advanced against the Babylonian army, the Babylonians temporarily lifted their siege of Jerusalem—before returning to conquer it completely. This shows that Pharaoh and Zedekiah were at least acquainted.

Egypt’s conflict with Babylon, together with Judah’s fear of Babylon, may explain why the people sought refuge in Egypt in the first place. With Zedekiah’s sons killed and the king himself imprisoned, his daughters would suddenly become very significant. This was especially true at that time, when the fate of the earlier king, Jehoiachin, was not widely known—he too was in prison. Furthermore, God had declared through Jeremiah that the Messiah would not come from Jehoiachin’s line (Jer. 22:28–30). Zedekiah’s daughters, however, were not his direct descendants in that sense—they were his cousins—and therefore not included in that curse. At the time, the idea that Messiah would come through David’s second son by Bathsheba, Nathan, may not have been considered.

In those days, when a remnant people entered a new country, it was customary for the ruler of that country to be notified. It is therefore very likely that Pharaoh would have invited the princesses of Judah into his court as a symbolic act of defiance against Babylon. Hosting the surviving daughters of the king just overthrown by his enemy would have been a political advantage. For Pharaoh, offering them protection would not only bring him honor but also strengthen his call for allies against Babylon.

If Pharaoh had taken in Zedekiah’s daughter, she would have been regarded as his adopted daughter. In this way, a Judean princess could later be remembered as “a daughter of Pharaoh,” while still remaining the daughter of Judah’s king—since we know from the Bible she went to Egypt.

One non-biblical tradition describes their fate as follows:

“There they stayed in a palace that was given to Teia Tephi by Pharaoh Hophra after he adopted her as his own daughter. The palace, although now in ruins at Tel Defneh, is still known today as ‘Quasr Bint el Jehudi,’ which means ‘Palace of the Daughter of Judah.’” (jahtruth.net/tephisum.htm

Why would she go to Ireland?

But why Ireland of all places? One claim is that the descendants of Judah’s second son by Tamar had settled there. His name was Zarah (Gen. 38:30). When he was about to be born, a red string was tied around his hand as he reached out first, but then his twin brother was actually born before him.

We know that some of Zarah’s descendants were among the Israelites who left Egypt with Moses during the Exodus. However, because no detailed family line is given for them, it is hard to know if some had already left Egypt earlier. Considering the harsh treatment the Israelites endured, it is not unlikely that some escaped or departed before the Exodus. While there is no record to prove it, the possibility remains.

Another tradition claims that four of Dan’s sons escaped Egypt and went to what we now call Greece.

Diodorus Siculus, a Roman historian writing around 50 B.C., quoted the earlier historian Hecataeus of Abdera, who lived around 600 B.C. He recorded that some of the strangers expelled from Egypt followed Danaus and Kadmos to Greece, while most were led to Judea by Moses:

“Even among the ancients some considered that the [Danaan] settlers who arrived [in Greece] from Egypt were at any rate not of Egyptian descent, but adventurers of Semitic race, who, having been expelled from Egypt, had some of them turned towards Greece.” (Antiquities of Greece, p. 12)

The Bible itself even mentions them side by side:

“Dan also and Javan [Greeks] going to and fro occupied in thy fairs: bright iron, cassia, and calamus, were in thy market.” (Ezek. 27:19)

Greek tradition holds that their eponymous ancestor, Danaos (Dan), migrated from the Nile Delta to Greece (p. 108). Whether it was their original intention or not, the Danaans sailed north and settled in the secluded bay of Argos in the Greek Peloponnese.

The Encyclopedia Judaica (5:1257) quotes the leading Israeli archaeologist Y. Yadin, who states:

“…there is a close relationship between the tribe of Dan and the tribe of Danaoi whose members were clearly seafarers.”

Similarly, archaeologist Dr. Cyrus Gordon observed:

“Neither do I think that the eponymous [i.e., founder] of the Argive [Greek] Danai was other than that of the Israelite tribe of Dan; only we are so used to confine ourselves to the soil of Palestine in our consideration of the history of the Israelites, that we…ignore the share they may have taken in the ordinary history of the world.” (Before Columbus, p. 137)

The Bible says about Dan that they “remained in ships”: “…and why did Dan remain in ships?” (Judg. 5:17). The Danites in Israel appear to have maintained contact with their cousins in Argolis. Historical writings suggest they likely intermarried with locals, became paganized, and in return may have influenced the tribe of Dan in Israel—who repeatedly fell into unfaithfulness despite several reforms among the other tribes.

Recent excavations at the ancient city of Dan in Israel have revealed such strong Greek influence that some archaeologists—contrary to the Bible—have concluded the Danites were actually Greeks and not Israelites at all. But Scripture is clear that they were Israelites. What seems more likely is that Dan’s idolatry and independence were linked to their continued contact, through the sea, with their paganized relatives abroad.

Thus, both descendants of Dan and of Zerah have been claimed to have traveled northward and even to Ireland. This could explain why Zedekiah’s daughter might have sought refuge there once she realized she was not safe in Egypt.

But why does the Bible not mention those who left before the Exodus, those who later departed, or even those who never returned from exile? It appears that people not directly tied to God’s purposes in the Holy Land were no longer included in the biblical record.

This has precedent in Scripture. Individuals who fell away, left the covenant community, or became idol worshipers were sometimes omitted from the family tree. One example is Cainan, son of Arphaxad. In Genesis, his name is omitted and Salah is listed directly after Arphaxad (Gen. 10:24). Yet in Luke, he is mentioned (Luke 3:36). The Book of Jubilees explains why:

“He went to look for a place of his own where he could possess his own city. He found an inscription which the ancients had incised in a rock. He read what was in it, copied it, and sinned on the basis of what was in it since in it was the Watcher’s teaching by which they used to observe the omens of the sun, moon, and stars and every heavenly sign.” (Jub. 8:1–5)

All of this shows that the spread of Israelites was wider than the Bible directly records. God chose to highlight those who left Egypt under His leadership—not any who strayed away or broke faith. Yet archaeological findings at Dan show links with people from southern Greece, remembered as relatives. This makes it possible that descendants of Judah living elsewhere may also have maintained some ties with their family in Israel.

By this, the legend of Zedekiah’s daughter is not impossible. Nothing in Scripture rules it out entirely. Yet, because of the lack of direct evidence and historical records, the theory must remain speculation. Without evidence, it cannot be called fact.

One way to test the claim would be to extract DNA from the remains of Tea Tephi at Tara and compare it to DNA from royal tombs in Israel. But this presents challenges. Comparing with modern “descendants” is unreliable, since current genetic interpretations are based on evolutionary timelines that stretch human existence back tens of thousands of years. Such methods are designed to fit evolutionary theory, not the biblical record. A biblical approach to genetics and migration would be valuable, but it has yet to be attempted by researchers who accept the Bible’s accuracy.

To gain clarity, Tara’s DNA would need to be compared to remains from the same time period, not with modern lineages. Even then, proving her to be a Judean princess would not prove that she brought the Ark of the Covenant to Ireland. Furthermore, her maternal line could have been non-Jewish, since many foreigners lived in Jerusalem.

Thus, whether Tea Tephi was Zedekiah’s daughter or not does not determine the fate of the Ark. Her identity alone is not evidence of the Ark’s presence in Ireland. However, if she were proven not to be a Judean princess, the entire theory would lose nearly all of its foundation.

The Bible itself gives the ultimate perspective: God is not concerned with genetics but with the heart. King David’s family tree already included several non-Israelite women who turned to God—Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth the Moabite. Their faith made them not only part of Israel but part of the royal Davidic line that led to the Messiah.

For those who believe in Jesus as Messiah, His words settle the matter: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). This means He will not rule over the unconverted or even over obstinate Jews. He reigns as King over all who receive His kingdom in their hearts. After Jesus came, the royal line was fulfilled in Him. As the New Testament testifies, He is the eternal King with no successor.

It stops with Him.

“And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.” (Mark 15:2)
“These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.” (Rev. 17:14)

Even if an earthly royal line has continued from the tribe of Judah, it holds no divine authority over God’s people or His holy things. That kingship belongs to the Messiah alone.

What is the Hill of Tara?
There is a claim that the Ark of the Covenant is hidden beneath the Hill of Tara. The Hill of Tara is described in the 11th-century text The Book of Invasions as the seat of the High Kings of Ireland. On top of the hill stood the Lia Fáil, the coronation stone of Tara. According to legend, all the kings of Ireland were crowned upon this stone until around 500 AD.

“One version of Celtic myth, more often associated with the Stone of Scone, tells how the sacred stone arrived by ship of the Iberian Danaan around 580 BC. The ship landed at the ancient port of Carrickfergus and carried Eochaidh, son of a High King and descendant of Érimón, Princess Tea Tephi (sometimes called Scota), and the scribe Simon Brauch.
The story says that Princess Tea brought with her an ancient harp, believed by some to have originated in the House of David. Together, they delivered the stone to the Hill of Tara. Later, Scota married High King Eochaidh, whom she had previously met in Jerusalem. Eochaidh is said to have recovered the sacred stone in Jerusalem before the Babylonian invasion.
From then on, it was claimed that all future Irish High Kings—and later British monarchs—crowned upon the stone traced their lineage back to the royal sage Eochaidh and his wife Tea Tephi, the original bearers of the stone.
(Source: Wikipedia, “Lia Fáil”)

If she was Zedekiah’s daughter, did she take the Ark of the Covenant with her?

We must remember that this is still an if, since there is no real evidence. So, is it biblically or historically possible that the Ark was taken to Ireland?

The most important point is that the Bible says nothing about the Ark being taken anywhere. It does not mention the Ark being carried to Egypt, to Ireland, or to any other place. It does not even tell us who hid it or where it ended up. On this matter, the Bible is completely silent. Therefore, no biblical proof exists for the theory.

Likewise, the accompanying claim—that God intended to continue the Judean kingdom from the British Isles—has no foundation in Scripture.

It is also worth noting how young this theory really is. It did not emerge until the 20th century. The religious-political group that first promoted it was the British-Israel Association of London, founded by Edward Wheeler Bird in the 1850s. They believed that the Anglo-Saxon race descended from the lost tribes of Israel.

The idea, however, had earlier roots. As Brackney (2012) and Fine (2015) point out, the French Huguenot magistrate M. le Loyer expressed a similar belief in his work The Ten Lost Tribes, published in 1590. He claimed that “Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, and associated cultures” were direct descendants of the ancient Israelites.

But the British-Israel Association took the idea a step further. They held the underlying conviction that, because of this supposed ancestry, the British had the divine right to rule the entire world.
It is important to note that this theory emerged at the height of British imperialism. At the time, hopes for the future were tied to the empire’s expansion, and some even imagined that the Messiah would one day join forces with them. Thus, the theory served to present British imperialism as God’s will. It was within this context that the claim arose that the Ark of the Covenant was hidden inside the Hill of Tara—a site cherished by the Irish as the seat of their earliest known high kings and queens. Yet no historical record or credible evidence supported the idea; it was purely speculation. Over time, the speculation grew so important that some concluded the Ark had to be retrieved in order to prove British supremacy as God’s chosen people to rule the world. To strengthen the claim, they even argued that the name Tara came from Torah—suggesting that it meant “the Hill of the Torah,” or God’s law.
In June 1899, Walton Adams and Charles Groom began excavations at Tara, with permission from Gustavus Villiers Briscoe, a fellow Freemason and landowner. Many, however, were outraged at what they saw as vandalism of a national monument.

By January 1901, a campaign by the people and the press forced an end to the excavations. Later, the hill was placed under state protection.

Extensive excavations were carried out again in the 1950s. Archaeologists uncovered burials, cremations, and a variety of grave goods—but no Ark.

In the 1990s, archaeologist Conor Newman challenged the myth once more. Between 1992 and 1995, he carried out a non-invasive survey of Tara using modern equipment. His results showed that no Ark could be hidden beneath the surface.

In the end, the theory had no support beyond speculation and wishful thinking. And no matter how bright an idea may seem, or how often it is repeated, more than imagination is needed to make it true. Yet the claim persists to this day, especially on the internet.

The Biblical aspect.
The Bible tells us that God had chosen Jerusalem.

Jeremiah is the prophet most often connected to the Ark’s disappearance in tradition. Yet Jeremiah himself had been given this prophecy:

“For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.” (Jer. 29:10–11)

Jeremiah therefore knew that the kingdom would one day continue in Jerusalem, and that God still regarded its hills as His chosen place. He had no reason to panic and remove the Ark, let alone drag it to a distant land like Ireland. On the contrary, Jeremiah prayed for Jerusalem’s future and pleaded with the people not to leave. Their destiny, if they remained faithful, was still tied to Jerusalem—and God’s plan was for them to be His people there forever.

Both the Old and New Testaments consistently place Jerusalem at the center of the final conflict between man and God on this earth (Ezek. 38; Zech. 14:2; Rev. 16:16; Joel 3:1–2, 16, 20–21, and many others). This indicates that Jerusalem itself represents God’s kingship. Otherwise, there would be no need for the nations to attack it, nor for God to use it as the place of His judgment. The meaning can only be taken in two ways: either Jerusalem is used symbolically to represent God’s people, or it refers to the actual city. But in no way can these prophecies be stretched to refer to a new geographical location.

The claim that the British Isles became God’s new chosen place has no support in Scripture. It is not mentioned in any prophecy.

The Ark was the visible symbol of God’s kingship on earth. For the British-Israel theory, finding it inside the Hill of Tara was vital to their claim that Britain was the new center of God’s reign and that they were His chosen people. Yet the absence of evidence, together with the Bible’s clear prophecies that God’s kingship remains tied to Jerusalem, speaks against such an idea.

In the Ark Files series, each episode is devoted to presenting biblical arguments not only for why the Ark of the Covenant would still be in Jerusalem, but also why Ron Wyatt’s reported discovery of the Ark there fits Scripture and is necessary for prophecy to have been fulfilled after the giving of the law. The very same arguments show why the Ark could not be at Tara.

Finally, Tara itself has been both scanned and excavated. The result is clear: no Ark was found there.

____________________________________________________

(1) Claimed family tree of Tea Tephi:  Adam –> Seth –> Enos –> Cainan –> Mahalaleel –> Jared –> Enoch –> Methuselah –> Lamech –> Noah –> Shem –> Arphaxad –> Cainan –> Salah –> Eber –> Peleg –> Reu –> Serug –> Nahor  –> Terah –> Abraham –> Isaac –> Jacob –> Judah and Tamar –> Perez –> Hezron –> Ram –> Amminadab –> Nahshon –> Salmon and Rachab –> Boaz and Ruth –> Obed –> Jesse –> David and Bathsheba –> Solomon –> Rehoboam –> Abijah –> Asa –> Jehoshaphat –> Jehoram –> Ahaziah –> Jotham –> Ahaz –>Hezekiah –> Manasseh –> Amon –> Josiah –> Zedekiah –> Tamar (Tea Tephi)

(2) (https://standardbearer.rfpa.org/node/49467)
(3) Can be given if requested.
(4) Armageddon is from the Hebrew Har-Megiddo and means ‘mountain of gathering’ which was the mountain they gathered for the feasts in Jerusalem.