NOAH'S ARK
147
NOAILLES
challon may therefore, in accordance with Oriental custom, more naturally denote merely a lattice in the tsohiir. Supposing, then, the tsohar to be, as we have said, a skylight, or series of skylights running the wlKjle length of the ark (and the fem. form of the noun inclines one to regard it as a collective noun), the chal- 16h might very well be a single compartment of the larger window, which could be opened at will. A dif- ferent word from either of these is used in vii, 11, of the windows of heaven, ri31X, 'druhbuth (from 2"lS, "to interweave"), lit. "networks," or "gratings" (Gesen. Thes. in v). A still different explanation possible is that the tso/iar in question consisted of a space in the siding left open all along for a cubit's depth just beneath (il3"'23p) the projecting eaves. See Window. But besides the \vindo\v there was to be a door. This was to be placed in the side of the ark. " The door must have been of some size to admit the larger animals, for whose ingress it was mainly intended. It was no doubt above the highest draught-mark of the ark, and the animals ascended to it probabl)' by a sloping embank- ment. A door in the side is not more difficult to un- derstand than the port-holes in the sides of our vessels" (Kitto, Bible Illustrations, Antediluvians, etc. p. 142). The Jewish notion was that the ark was entered by means of a ladder. On the steps of this ladder, the story goes, Og, king of Bashan, was sitting when the flood came ; and on his pledging himself to Noah and his sons to be their slave forever, he was suffered to remain there, and Noah gave him his food each day out of a hole in the ark (Pirke R. Eliezer).
Of the shape of the ark nothing is said ; but its di- mensions are given. It was to be 300 cubits in length, 50 in breadth, and 30 in height. Supposing the cubit here to be the cubit of natural measurement, reckoning from the elbow to the top of the middle finger, we may get a rough approximation as to the size of the ark. The cubit, so measured (called in Deut. iii, 11 "the cubit of a man"), must of course, at first, like all natu- ral measurements, have been inexact and fluctuating. In later times no doubt the Jews had a standard com- mon cubit, as well as the royal cubit and sacred cubit. We shall probably', however, be near enough to the mark if we take the cubit here to be the common cubit, which was reckoned (according to Mich., Jahn, Gesen., and others) as equal to six hand-breadths, the hand- breadth being 3| inches. This, therefore, gives 21 inch- es for the cubit. See Cubit. Accordingly the ark would be 525 feet in length, 87 feet 6 inches in breadth, and 52 feet 0 inches in height. This is very consider- ably larger than the largest British man-of-war. The Great Eustern, however, is both longer and deeper than the ark, being 680 feet in length (G91 on deck), 83 in breadth, and 58 in depth. Solomon's Temple, the pro- portions of which are given (1 Kings vi, 2), was of the same height as the ark, but only one fifth of the length, and less than half the width. Augustine (i)e Civ. D. lib. xv) long ago discovered another excellence in the proportions of the ark, and that is that they were the same as the proportions of the perfect human figure, the length of which from the sole to the crown is six times the width across the chest, and ten times the depth of the recumbent figure measured in a right line from the ground.
It should be remembered that this huge structure was only intended to float on the water, antl was not, in the proper sense of the word, a ship. It had neither mast, sail, nor rudder; it was, in fact, nothing but an enormous floating house, or oblong box rather, " as it is very likely," says Sir W. Raleigh, " that the ark had fundum planum, a flat bottom, and not raj-sed in form of a ship, with a sharpness forward, to cut the waves for the better speed." The figure which is commonly given to it by painters, there can be no doubt, is wrong. Two objects only were aimed at in its construction: the one was that it should have ample stowage, and the
other that it should be able to keep steady upon the water. It was never intended to be carried to any great distance from the place where it was originally built. A curious proof of the suitability of the ark for the purpose for which it was intended was given by a Dutch merchant, Peter Jansen, the Mennonite, who in the year 1009 had a ship built at Hoorn of the same pro- portions (though of course not of the same size) as Noah's ark (see Michaelis, Or. Bib. xviii, 27 sq.). It was 120 feet long, 20 broad, and 12 deep. This vessel, unsuitable as it was for quick voj'ages, was found re- markably well adapted for freightage. It was calculated that it would hold a third more lading than other ves- sels, without requiring more hands to work it. A similar experiment is also said to have been made in Denmark, where, according to Reyher, several vessels called " fleu- ten," or floats, were built after the model of the ark (Smith). See Ark.