Sceptics objecting to the size of Noah’s Ark frequently point to smaller 19th century timber ships which were unseaworthy due to their large size, such as the 19th century American schooners ‘Wyoming’ and ‘Great Republic, two of the largest all timber vessels ever built. It is claimed that the chronic leaking, warping, and hull separation from which such ships suffered (despite reinforcement with iron bracing), proves the Ark could not have survived the flood.
Though frequently compared with sailing ships, or even ships with steam engines, the Ark was actually a barge. Barges are not subject to the same stresses as a sailing ship, such as the weight of sails and rigging, and they are not subject to hull stresses caused by the wind bending the masts. The Ark did not have to carry the tremendous weight of cannon which burdened the timber ships with which it is often compared, nor did it have to deal with the weight and stresses of a steam engine or steam bilge pumps, or the rigors of sea travel (it stayed within the Mesopotamian flood plain).
One of the largest wooden ships, the Appomattox, is often compared with the Ark. Measuring 97.2 metres long (319 feet), with a beam of 12.8 metres (42 feet), it had to be reinforced with steel bracing just to stay together, and pumped continuously by steam bilge pumps due to constant leaking, as stresses on the hull caused the timbers to separate. Sceptics frequently point to this as an example of the vulnerability of wooden ships over 300 feet long, and argue that this demonstrates Noah’s Ark could not possibly have been practical.
However, the Appomattox was designed completely differently to the Ark, being a steam powered ship not a barge. It was also subjected to other stresses caused by having to tow a large unpowered barge behind it. This barge, the Santiago, is a far more relevant vessel with which to compare the Ark. Like the Ark it was made entirely of timber, carrying no steel bracing, and was not powered either by steam or sail. It was even larger than the Appomattox, 102.4 metres long (336 feet), with a beam of 14 metres (46 feet). Its service history (1899-1918), was over twice as long as that of the Appomattox, despite serving on the Great Lakes, notorious for their storm conditions and unpredictable waters.
From as early as the 17th century, comparisons have been drawn between the Ark and various ancient vessels considered similar in dimensions and construction. Defending the practicality of the Ark, Walter Raleigh argued that it was smaller than a ship built in the reign of Hiero II of Syracuse (3rd century BC), and smaller than the giant fighting ship Tessarakonteres built by Ptolemy IV Philopater (3rd century BC). The Tessarakonteres remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century for Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals.
Historians recognize a number of ancient large ships comparable to the Ark as genuine vessels.
- 1,480 BC: An obelisk barge built in Egypt for Queen Hatshepsut, 95-140m long (311-459ft), 32m wide (104 ft);[1] a wall relief shows it carrying two obelisks end to end, indicating a length well over 100 metres.
- 200 BC: The Thalamagos, a large pleasure barge built Ptolemy IV Philopater, 114m long (377 ft), described by the Greek historian Athenaeus.
- 200 BC: The Tessarakonteres, a warship built for Ptolemy IV Philopater, 128m long (420ft), described by the 1st century Roman historian Plutarch.
- 200 BC: A timber warship described by the 1st century Greek historian Memnon of Heraclea, 100m long (300ft).
- 1st century: The ‘Nemi Ships’, two timber barges built for the Roman emperor Caligua, 70m long (229ft), 18m wide (60ft).
- 1st century: A large cargo barge built for Caligula, used to transport an obelisk from Egypt to Rome, 104m long (341ft), 20.3m wide (66ft).
The successful wooden ships of this size required nothing more sophisticated than such timber technology as mortise and tenon joinery, tension cables (called ‘hogging trusses’), and bulkheads or internal bracing, such as transverse lashing and lateral or longitudinal strength beams. In some cases, only three out of these five techniques were used, whereas Noah’s ark demonstrably used at least four of these techniques.
Noah was a Mesopotamian, who would have used contemporary Mesopotamian construction techniques, meaning the Ark would have used mortise and tenon joinery, longitudinal strength beams, tension trusses, and hogging trusses, just like other ships built in the Bronze Age. In Mesopotamia, copper was used to make hammers and nails, adzes, chisels, axes, and drill bits from before 3,500 B.C.E, mortise and tenon joinery was used from at least the same time, whilst timber boats using sails and copper nails appear as early as 3,500 B.C.E.
Egyptian inscriptions as early as the reign of Khufu I (2,589-2,566 B.C.E.), show ships built with internal bracing techniques such as lateral and longitudinal strength beams, and transverse lashing. Longitudinal strength bulkheads are found in the Egyptian Middle Kingdom era (between 1,991 BCE and 1,648 B.C.E.), showing that this technology was used from a very early date in the Ancient Near East.
While only the obelisk barge of Hatshepsut is chronologically proximate to the Ark, these vessels prove that pre-modern societies were capable of building timber ships far larger than even their Industrial Age counterparts. It can be proved that the technology used by these cultures was capable of building such large vessels.
Importantly, these ships were built using the same construction techniques used in the Early and Middle Bronze Age, including mortise and tenon joinery and a ‘hull first’ construction method, rather than the ‘frame first’ construction method used by later Western maritime engineers.
Even more significant is Caligula’s ‘Giant Ship‘, mentioned previously. It had six decks, displaced between 7,000 and 8,000 tons, and carried a crew of 700-800. It was built using the same construction method as the two pleasure barges (the ‘Nemi Ships’). The dimensions of this ship are not contested, since its physical remains have been found at Port Claudius in Italy (near Rome International Airport), where it was sunk and filled with stones to create a foundation for the port’s lighthouse.
Prior to this discovery, mention of super barges in Roman historical literature (such as Pliny the Elder), had been dismissed as either legend or wild exaggeration. Not only was it considered impossible to build such a large vessel from timber, it was also considered impossible that the Romans had the technology necessary for such an achievement. But the physical evidence overturned these preconceptions.
It became clear that the simple maritime techniques known not only by the Romans but by the Ancient Near East in the Early Middle Bronze Age were more than enough to construct sea going vessels larger than any Western timber ship up to the mid-19th century. Even more startling was the fact that this super barge of Caligula’s was a reliable sea-going vessel, unlike many 19th century timber ships over 90 metres long (295 feet).
It is therefore clear that the technology required to build a timber ship the size of Noah’s Ark was already available long before the 19th century, and had been used to construct vessels almost as large as the Ark.
[1] Estimates vary depending on interpretations of the historical evidence.
Evidence for the existence of Jesus in the New Testament