Thou shalt make - the length of the ark - three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits - Allowing the cubit, which is the length from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger, to be eighteen inches, the ark must have been four hundred and fifty feet in length, seventy-five in breadth, and forty-five in height. But that the ancient cubit was more than eighteen inches has been demonstrated by Mr. Greaves, who traveled in Greece, Palestine, and Egypt, in order to be able to ascertain the weights, moneys, and measures of antiquity. He measured the pyramids in Egypt, and comparing the accounts which Herodotus, Strabo, and others, give of their size, he found the length of a cubit to be twenty-one inches and eight hundred and eighty-eight decimal parts out of a thousand, or nearly twenty-two inches. Hence the cube of a cubit is evidently ten thousand four hundred and eighty-six inches. And from this it will appear that the three hundred cubits of the ark's length make five hundred and forty-seven feet; the fifty for its breadth, ninety-one feet two inches; and the thirty for its height, fifty-four feet eight inches. When these dimensions are examined, the ark will be found to be a vessel whose capacity was more than sufficient to contain all persons and animals said to have been in it, with sufficient food for each for more than twelve months. This vessel Dr. Arbuthnot computes to have been eighty-one thousand and sixty-two tons in burden.
As many have supposed the capacity of the ark to have been much too small for the things which were contained in it, it will be necessary to examine this subject thoroughly, that every difficulty may be removed. The things contained in the ark, besides the eight persons of Noah's family, were one pair of all unclean animals, and seven pairs of all clean animals with provisions for all sufficient for twelve months.
At the first view the number of animals may appear so immense that no space but the forest could be thought sufficient to contain them. If, however, we come to a calculation, the number of the different genera or kinds of animals will be found much less than is generally imagined. It is a question whether in this account any but the different genera of animals necessary to be brought into the ark should be included Naturalists have divided the whole system of zoology into Classes and Orders, containing genera and species. There are six classes thus denominated:
1. Mammalia;
2. Aves;
3. Amphibia;
4. Pisces;
5. Insectae;
6. Vermes.
With the three last of these, viz., fishes, insects, and worms, the question can have little to do.
The first Class, Mammalia, or animals with teats, contains seven orders, and only forty-three genera if we except the seventh order, cete, i.e. all the whale kind, which certainly need not come into this account. The different species in this class amount, the cete excluded, to five hundred and forty-three.
The second Class, Aves, birds, contains six orders, and only seventy-four genera, if we exclude the third order, anseres, or web-footed fowls, all of which could very well live in the water. The different species in this class, the anseres excepted, amount to two thousand three hundred and seventy-two.
The third Class, Amphibia, contains only two orders, reptiles and serpents; these comprehend ten genera, and three hundred and sixty-six species, but of the reptiles many could live in the water, such as the tortoise, frog, etc. Of the former there are thirty-three species, of the latter seventeen, which excluded reduce the number to three hundred and sixteen. The whole of these would occupy but little room in the ark, for a small portion of earth, etc., in the hold would be sufficient for their accommodation.
Bishop Wilkins, who has written largely and with his usual accuracy on this subject, supposes that quadrupeds do not amount to one hundred different kinds, nor birds which could not live in the water to two hundred. Of quadrupeds he shows that only seventy-two species needed a place in the ark, and the birds he divides into nine classes, including in the whole one hundred and ninety-five kinds, from which all the web-footed should be deducted, as these could live in the water.
He computes all the carnivorous animals equivalent, as to the bulk of their bodies and food, to twenty-seven wolves; and all the rest to one hundred and eighty oxen. For the former he allows one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five sheep for their annual consumption; and for the latter, one hundred and nine thousand five hundred cubits of hay: these animals and their food will be easily contained In the two first stories, and much room to spare; as to the third story, no person can doubt its being sufficient for the fowls, with Noah and his family.
One sheep each day he judges will be sufficient for six wolves; and a square cubit of hay, which contains forty-one pounds, as ordinarily pressed in our ricks, will he amply sufficient for one ox in the day. When the quantum of room which these animals and their provender required for one year, is compared with the capacity of the ark, we shall be led to conclude, with the learned bishop, "that of the two it is more difficult to assign a number and bulk of necessary things to answer to the capacity of the ark, than to find sufficient room for the several species of animals and their food already known to have been there." This he attributes to the imperfection of our lists of animals, especially those of the unknown parts of the earth; and adds, "that the most expert mathematicians at this day," and he was one of the first in Europe, "could not assign the proportion of a vessel better accommodated to the purpose than is here done;" and concludes thus: "The capacity of the ark, which has been made an objection against Scripture, ought to be esteemed a confirmation of its Divine authority; since, in those ruder ages men, being less versed in arts and philosophy, were more obnoxious to vulgar prejudices than now, so that had it been a human invention it would have been contrived, according to those wild apprehensions which arise from a confused and general view of things, as much too big as it has been represented too little." See Bishop Wilkins's Essay towards a Philosophical Character and Language. |