I always have had a discreet paranoia there might be a mistranslation somewhere in the Bible I unaware of which would directly affect the core of faith. Though I haven’t analyzed the whole Bible comprehensively, I have yet to find any examples profound enough to accomplish this which encourages a greater faith in those central creeds. The greatest issue I encounter with translation and word study come not from the necessary elements, but arise most often from attempts made to identify specific materials, objects, places, or animals. This is the case with Psalm 18:34, which has been rendered to refer to steel, bronze, or copper, depending on translation or commentary.
Psalm 18:34, “He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken in mine arms.”
KJV
The translation of “steel” perks up the ears of the excited critic and gives them a foundation on which to argue against the Bible’s claim as a historically reliable document. Yet, study will show steel has long been eliminated as a possible translation of the Hebrew nechushah and is more properly translated “copper” or “bronze.” Reputable sources like Brown-Driver-Briggs are among those who exclude steel as a possibility completely.
Psalm 18:34, “He trains my hands for battle; my arms can bend a bow of bronze [or ‘copper’; Hb. nechushah].”
I go a step further than some and suggest it leans more toward “copper.” Lest we think this too can be an anachronism, it is well within, or even post the Bronze Age date when composite bows were first said to appear, being approximately 1900 BC. We can use other verses to make this case, for as steel is an alloy of iron and carbon, a verse in Job makes it, at very least, unlikely nechushah would be used for steel or bronze as the verse implies it comes straight from rock.
Job 28:2, “Iron [Hb. peladah] is taken from the earth, and copper [Hb. nechushah] is smelted from stone [Hb. eben also ‘ore’].”
The book of Job is an interesting one because there is no clear agreement when it was written. In some regards it seems to be very ancient, and in others relatively recent. There are three main schools of thought:
1: Job was written after the flood but before Moses, between 2350 BC and 1750 BC .
2: Job was written after Joseph but before Moses, between 1650 BC and 1500 BC.
3: Job lived during Moses’ lifetime, between 1400 BC and 1300 BC.
If consensus means anything, most scholars agree with the first citing contents of the book which point to a very early period, like lifespan. However, if we accept this, Job can present some possible problems regarding the utilization of iron which would date it, at first glance, around the late second, or third possibility, but before we get discouraged, as the Encyclopedia Britannica points out, the origins of smelted iron ore are obscured by history. Yet, through this obscurity some evidence does exist, of such a process existing as early as 2500 BC.
“The earliest history of smelted iron is obscure, with the first scanty evidence of man-made iron dating from about 2500 bce in the Middle East. A thousand years later the abundance of ores led to the displacement of copper and bronze by iron in the Hittite empire.”
Both iron and copper are natural elements which need smelted, but aren’t alloys in themselves, while steel is. Bronze too is an alloy made of copper and tin. As it comes to iron, a variety of minerals can be added to further develop the steel alloy. Steel is created by adding carbon to iron, or in the case of stainless steel, chromite to iron. Given steel is created from iron, how much does it fits for Job 28:2 to read something like, “Iron is taken from the earth, and steel [an iron alloy] is smelted from stone”? Even if eben is translated “ore,” we need to suppose the verse says, “Iron is taken from the earth, and steel is smelted from the iron ore.” Though we may make it work by adding a couple words, and making a linguistic alloy in a sense, the copper translation more smoothly adheres to the mineral being smelted out of the stone itself, referring to its organic purity, while steel does not. Steel can reasonably be ruled out, both on the translational end and the historical.
The book of the minor prophet Nahum, in his prophesy regarding the destruction of Nineveh, is sometimes also said to refer to steel.
Nahum 2:3, “The shield of his mighty ones has become red, the mighty men are clothed in scarlet, the chariots will flame like iron [Hb. peladah] torches [or ‘flash with steel’] in the day of preparation, and the cypresses are made to quiver [or ‘the spears are brandished’].”
Nineveh sacked by the Medes, 612 BC, Mary Evans Picture Library
The word in Nahum 2:3 sometimes rendered “steel” is not nechushah but peladah, which some render as “iron,” but the Hebrew word for iron is barzel. Why Nahum would switch up the word, the only occurrence of peladah, to mean iron instead of using the usual brazel is not explained (though some say it refers to a specific part of a chariot). If we split up the word into two parts, say a suffix and a prefix, while assuming such a thing can be done with Hebrew (I cannot say for certain it can), pela means “extraordinary,” and dah (a plural of this, or “these” as “together,” or “one another” respectively), we arrive at a conjoined term meaning something like an “awesome” or “extraordinary multitude.” Since the word prior (Hb. esh) is rendered literally “flame” or “flaming,” and is figuratively read to refer to “anger”, especially God’s anger, it is interesting to theorize or imagine the verse as saying, “The chariots shall be an angry and awesome multitude in the day of his preparation, and the fir trees shall be terribly shaken.” “Fir trees” too is a questionable rendering of Nahum 2:3 and is often regarded as referring to wooden spears of cypress or juniper. Yet, if my speculative food for thought has validity, the shaking of the cypress, or fir trees, makes poetic sense given the amount of thundering chariots, and, with such a translation, the following verse also fits within the overall context.
Nahum 2:4, “The chariots run madly in the streets; they shall rush to and fro in the plazas. Their appearance is like torches; they dart about like the [lightning].”
The last word translated “lightning” I have kept identical to the LITV (literal) translation only excepting the plurality of lightnings. “Their appearance is like torches” likely means “ like flame” as the Leviathan is said to breath torches in the book of Job (v. 41:19).
Job 41:19, “Out of [the Leviathan’s] mouth go burning torches; sparks fly out.”
Clearly, the Bible is using a simile saying it is like torches, or rather, like flame. Thus, one need examine the attributes of fire and flame to understand the Bible’s meaning. Fire is destructive, prone to raging out of control (The KJV translates Nahum 2:4, “The chariots shall rage in the streets”), and is ultimately terrifying. While some people fight fires, others flee when it moves from a simple spark, to a lone flame, and then to an inferno. Assuming the proper fuel, fire will eventually reach this zenith, and if not extinguished, will destroy everything in its path.
I always caution using anachronistic arguments, both as an apologetic tool and a criticism because we are always learning the ancients were more advanced then we prior thought possible. Some archaeologists believe steel could have been being made, albeit on a small level, as early as 1800 BC and, if so, would set origins of steel production at just after the book of Genesis concluded. Could it be argued there is nothing wrong with the “steel” translation then? One could try to use this explanation I suppose, but I don’t consider it a tenable explanation. I am sure steel produced on a mass scale in this era would be vigorously disputed, for depending who you ask the dates and origins of steel are extremely and surprisingly varied. A quick Google search revealed differing conclusions, from the early 1800 BC date to the 3rd, 13th, or even 16th century! The wild disparity likely arises from different views on the extent of metallurgy in its sustainability as a profitable industry and the uses of the resulting product. For example, a mere speck of steel being created might not warrant the term “origin” in the mind of some students or professions of history, while others it may reflect accuracy. For many it may be more appropriate to place the origin when items began being made which employed its use. As far as I am concerned, all I know is the 16th century seems a little late to place the origins of steel.
This doesn’t answer everything. I certainly can’t vouch for the durability or practicality in using a bronze, brass, or copper composite bow, or even if the Psalm is meant to be literal or figurative (even today one said to be able to “bend steel” signifies someone’s great strength rather than their real ability to do it). In spite of all wandering speculation, I think we can safely reach the conclusion the mistranslated biblical references to steel likely refer to copper, though I cannot discount its loose application to a copper alloy or bronze, which may yield greater strength. Yet, for our intents and purposes, and the verses we have discussed, the copper translation makes the most sense.
Within the Bible there are accounts which are almost universally beloved among both the believing community and the secular. A couple examples of these include Noah’s Ark and Jonah and the whale. The former almost has universal appeal, and one would be hard-pressed to drive past any reputable daycare and not see some stylized child-friendly illustration or depiction of Noah’s Ark. We can almost picture it in our minds: a short, stocky boat comprised of wood, with a roof made of sticks or straw, usually featuring a conspicuous giraffe’s head and neck sticking up (a necessity), and perhaps a couple lions, elephants, zebra, and hippos. As whimsical and charming as these depictions are, careful study makes it clear the real ark wouldn’t have resembled them at all. Indeed, when we look at illustrations or even physical reconstructions of the ark, we find some striking differences between them which emphasizes there is much left to the imagination. Vast are the mysteries of the ark, which I couldn’t attest to even begin to explore, but one I encountered recently was something the Hebrew refers to as the tsohar. The word is found in Genesis 6:16 when God is delivering His instructions to Noah.
Genesis 6:16[LITV], “You shall make a window [Hb. tsohar] in the ark, and you shall finish it above to a cubit. And you shall set the door of the ark in its side. You shall make it with lower, second, and third stories.”
The Hebrew word tsohar is a word rendered in the literal translations as “window,” while other versions differ and tell us it means “roof.” The ancient Hebrew word for window was challon and so there is some debate on what the nature of the window or roof [Hb. tsohar] was. Instead of it being one or the other, it may refer to a skylight which one could incorporate and unite both roof and window. Yet, there was no such thing as glass at the time, so how can this be possible? Arguments from anachronisms can be dangerous, since we continually discover the ancients were more advanced than we thought, but we need not hinge on this as an explanation. Rather, it may be the contemporary world in which we live, but it is clear, no pun intended, a window isn’t synonymous with glass, lest we argue “window” is a relatively recent term. Merriam-Webster defines it as: “an opening especially in the wall of a building for admission of light and air that is usually closed by casements or sashes containing transparent material (such as glass) and capable of being open and shut.” Therefore, a predicate of a glass panel applied to window isn’t always the case. Glass is not a necessary condition for what makes a window.
A related issue we may be prompted to address is the question how the interior of the ark was illuminated? Was it done from this tsohar alone? From other windows? Unlikely, for reasons we will discuss soon, but during dark hours it has been proposed torches could have done the trick at times, but these could be hazardous. Many agree a lamp containing olive oil, a popular form of lighting in the ancient Near East, was what was used. Another aspect is ventilation. It seems ventilation would be needed with all the animals and people aboard the ark, even more so if there was smoke in the ark from methods of lighting, though olive oil lamps burn clean. Given these considerations, ventilation placed at the top would make the most sense, and would provide light during the day, but such a hypothesis would prove untenable due to the great flood. Without glass, rain would pour into the ark and even if it could be bailed out continually from windows or other means, like scuppers, it would encourage mold, disease, and increasingly extant complications from damp unsanitary conditions, which they probably faced enough of anyway.
Let us look again at Genesis 6:16, making an extra note of where it says, “You shall make a window [Hb. Tsohar] in the ark, and you shall finish it above to a cubit.”
Genesis 6:16, “You shall make a window [Hb. tsohar] in the ark, and you shall finish [Hb. kalah] it above to a cubit. And you shall set the door of the ark in its side. You shall make it with lower, second, and third stories.”
Finish it above what? If you wanted to argue the tsohar refers to the roof above the floor, this creates obvious difficulty since a cubit represents only about 18 inches. It remains possible the tsohar was set in the roof, rather than meaning roof, at least in part, and it appears the tsohar was of a construction not limited to a simple opening with primary dimensions of length and width, but also height. If this be so, then the verse could read, “You shall make a [tsohar] in the ark, and you shall [complete the tsohar] above to a cubit.” When it says this tsohar was located “in” the ark, we suppose it to be of the same form of “in” as “you shall set the door of the ark in its side.” In other words, in or on the roof rather than inside the ark. So what was a cubit above?
We could propose finish means to put on a finish (i.e. polish), or protective coating, but 18 inches of a finish? Regardless of all the practical difficulty this conclusion presents, the Hebrew doesn’t support it. The word for “finish” in the Genesis 6:16 is kalah, meaning to “complete or accomplish.” Could it be, a cubit above the roof, which the tsohar was possibly set flush in, was a canopy or other means of blocking the rain but allowing for light and ventilation? The word tsohar usually refers to “noon” or “midday” and implies light. If it meant roof as some translations read, it would be quite curious for something inferring light to be used for something that blocks it, as a roof. However, if I am correct (I have no way of knowing for certain) we can find a sort of union between the two translations of roof and window. If there was a window with some sort of roof or canopy above it, this would, in a sense, satisfy both translations. I speculate Genesis 6:16 and the word tsohar describe a covered window, with a canopy a cubit above the roof, which protected the window from the deluge. This is far from conclusive, just a theory, but still within the range of valid speculation.
Another possibility is the roof itself is a cubit above the tsohar. This interpretation centers on what “it” refers to within the statement, “you shall finish it above to a cubit.” Some propose the it is the window or tsohar, others the roof, or even the ark itself. I reject the conclusion “it” refers to the ark because of further instructions on constructing the ark in the second half of Genesis 6:16. The idea “it” refers to roof is less unlikely, but still hinges on the translation of tsohar meaning roof. The NIV Study Bible, though a wonderful resource of information and in depth study, as well as being very reliable on most accounts, holds to one such translation and interpretation. The NIV Study Bible says, “[The] ark probably had a series of small windows encircling the entire vessel 18 inches from the top.” Their conclusion is “it” refers to the roof above the tsohar. Once more we will increasingly come to find the tsohar may be a composite of both window and roof. Yet, for the sake of our argument regarding translation, “roof” is a questionable and faulty one.
There were even other theories. Some who subscribe to Kabbalah or Jewish Mysticism believe the tsohar was something mystical, neither window nor roof, but a mysterious stone which emanated with light, or some piece of forgotten ancient technology (and we all know where they often say such ancient technology comes from).
Scripturally there is little evidence, if any, which would validate this interpretation. Jewish Mysticism seeks to apply mystical interpretations to the Bible, both the Old Testament and New Testament. This kind of biblical interpretation when applied to Christianity is referred to as Christian Kabbalah or, perhaps more broadly, Christian Mysticism. Christian Mysticism, by the way, is something far different than being Pentecostal or charismatic. This subject we will leave for another time or for someone else.
It is worth nothing the tsohar was likely in the roof because of the later emphasis on the door in the ark’s side, as if “You shall set a skylight [within roof by definition] in the ark, erecting a canopy a cubit above, and shall set a door in the side of the ark. The ark shall be comprised of three stories.” One is faced with the question as to where the translation of roof came from? This is as mysterious as the Greek Septuagint translation which speaks of the “narrowing” the ark. I implore the reader to bear with me here and keep an open mind, for I am going to explain why roof might have been chosen the best I know. I can’t make the guarantee what I hypothesize is anything remotely plausible.
The root of tsohar is tsahar, which means to “glisten,” or to “press out as oil.” Interesting since olive oil was used in lanterns. Was tsohar then a lantern hanging from the ceiling 18 inches below? Being at sea with a lantern hanging from a ceiling might cause some problems, so I don’t theorize that is the case. Again, it has nothing to necessarily do with a roof though. Moving on, the root of tsahar is yitshar. This is even more interesting because it means “fresh oil,” “shining oil,” or as Strong’s says: “Oil (as producing light).” It also refers figuratively to the process of anointing with oil. Anointing, of course, was usually done on the head and according to the 1828 Webster’s American Dictionary of The English Language means to “spread over.” If the translators took these things into account, the root meanings, to anoint, spread, extend out, (ibid.), or cover something, along with the knowledge tsohar means midday, where the sun is directly overhead, roof might seem an adequate, albeit, creative fit. Am I stretching it a bit? Absolutely, but again, a word referring to something producing or allowing for light, being used for something that blocks or obscures it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
The composition of Genesis 6:16 makes it worth noting the tsohar was likely in the roof because of later emphasis on the door’s placement in the ark’s side. If the tsohar was in the side of the ark, it would seem challon, the literal Hebrew word for window would have been used. We see this word later employed in Genesis 8:6 when Noah releases the raven.
Genesis 8:6, “At the end of forty days Noah opened the window [Hb. challon] of the ark he had made.”
Grammatically, if current norms can be applied here, and granted, they usually can’t, it leads to a redundancy of sorts to say: “Set a window [in the side], and set a door in the side.” Repetition certainly isn’t absent in the Bible (indeed in contemporary writings too) and is used for a variety of reasons, from emphasis to garnishing poetic prose. Thus, this grammatical observation isn’t a particularly strong one in placing the tsohar in the roof. Challon is used for standard windows, so to speak, and is a greater consideration when determining where the tsohar was located. What of the Septuagint and its “narrowing” of the ark. Brenton’s English Septuagint reads:
Genesis 6:17[LXX],“Thou shalt narrow the ark in making it, and in a cubit above shall finish it, and the door of the ark thou shalt make on the side; with lower, second, and third stories thou shalt make it.”
You may notice the verse reference differs. Why in our current translations is it Genesis 6:16, and in the Septuagint (LXX) Genesis 6:17? Regarding the same phenomenon found in the Psalms, the Catholic website aleteia.org explains:
“[T]he Bible has not always had a numbering system . . . when it was written down, it didn’t have chapters and verses. These developed over time and it wasn’t until the last few centuries when they became more specific . . . . [T]here exist two different numbering systems based on two ancient translations. The first is the Hebrew Masoretic text, which is a collection of ancient texts written in Hebrew in the 7th century BC. Most modern translations of the Bible use the Hebrew text as a primary source and the numbering system that is associated with it. The second translation . . . is the Greek Septuagint, written during the 2nd century BC. This translation . . . has a slightly different numbering system and most ancient translations of the Bible use it. For example, the Latin Vulgate uses it, along with the Douay-Rheims and other translations . . . based on the Vulgate. In some Bibles they will list both numbers, having the Hebrew numbering system first with the Greek numbers in brackets. It is a small difference but just enough to be confusing when trying to look up a certain [verse].”
It is a safe assumption to say if it is the case with the Psalms then it is the same with all the Old Testament and the reason for the difference between verse number reference. I unfortunately was unable to find a good reason for why this exact translation of “narrowing” was made in the Septuagint, but like the takhash, or even the roof, perhaps it is because tsohar , or its parts, had a similar and contemporary Arabic word, the definition of which the translators borrowed from. Another possibility a real scholar might look into is the words which could be theorized to make up the composite tsohar. Tson is a Hebrew word meaning sheep, small cattle, or sheepcote, a sheep enclosure. The Hebrew word har means mountain, hill, or hillside. With a enclosure and a hill, a creative mind might be able to construct the conception of the “enclosure narrowing.” As many things in this entry, I offer it as a poor (maybe very poor) guess. I really have no idea.
When we talk of Hebrew words in the Bible with no clear or definitive meaning behind them, the great need for translation probably sees scholars formulate an educated hypothesis based on root words and weigh a cross section of meaning within the context to find what fits most properly. This practice, to whatever degree it exists, doesn’t invalidate the main objects of our faith because while there are core elements of faith, there are also peripheral questions which don’t impact the core.
Many theologians agree with the conclusion the tsohar, whatever its exact nature, was located in or on the roof. The American theologian Albert Barnes (1798-1867) concluded this when he said:
“The lighting apparatus [tsohar] is not described so particularly that we can form any conception of it. It was probably in the roof. The roof may have been flat. . . . The cubit is possibly the height of the parapet round the lighting and ventilation aperture. The opening occupied, it may be, a considerable portion of the roof, and was covered with an awning [Hb. mikseh].”
Albert Barnes’ Notes on The Bible, “Genesis 6:14-16.”
The Hebrew word mikseh is defined by The Complete Word Study Dictionary as: “A masculine noun indicating a covering. It refers to something used to shelter, protect, or enclose an object, such as Noah’s ark or the Tent of Meeting or Tabernacle. . . . The covering of the Tabernacle was made double of ram’s skins and porpoise.”
This is very relevant to our study. As indicated by The Complete Word Study Dictionary, there was a cover on at least a portion of the ark. To show this, we move to chapter 8 of Genesis.
Genesis 8:13-19, “In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the earth. And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry. In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth had dried out. Then God said to Noah, ‘Go out from the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh——birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth——that they may swarm on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.’ So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him. Every beast, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves on the earth, went out by families from the ark.”
Some prominent theologians also conclude the opening by which Noah peered to see the land dry after removing the covering was on the roof of the ark. This likely has to do with the account of Noah’s ark often being read to infer Noah didn’t have the ability to look out of the challon in any meaningful way. The window(s) would have been set in the side, likely in the upper deck as we will see. Being unable to look out onto the water or see dry land might seem like an odd detail for such a window (we will get into this further), but I think the inability to see out the window, or challon, will actually come to make the most sense. I suppose the window here could have had a skin on it, though this isn’t specifically mentioned, but if it did, the “opening” of the window might include not only moving the skin, but any wooden shutter upon the window. We can even further speculate a skin was attached to the shutter itself for “weatherproofing.” Therefore, if we accept the validity of these things, we reach the conclusion Noah must have looked from something else than these windows in the side and perhaps out the tsohar on the roof. It is unlikely Noah looked from the door God commanded him to build because it is implied Noah did not do so before God commanded him, as he was “shut in” according to the Scriptures.
Genesis 7:16, “The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.”
Many find great insight and profundity in this.
John Gill says:
“Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked; not the roof of it, at least not the whole, only a board or two; though perhaps this was a covering made of skins, that was thrown over the ark, like that which was put over the Tabernacle of Moses, and was made of skins, Exodus 26:14, where the same word is used as here: the use might be to hang over the window and defend it from rain; so that the uncovering of the ark was only putting by, or turning up this covering, that he might be able to more clearly see, out the window, how things were: and, behold, the face of the ground was dry; the ground or surface of the earth looked dry; but was not so dry and hard as to bear heavy bodies, or the foot to tread on it, being soft and tender, through the water so long upon it, and had left mud and slime, not yet sufficiently hardened by the wind and sun to walk upon.”
John Gill’s Exposition of The Bible, “Genesis 8:13”
John Charles Ellicott:
“No one can read the narrative without noticing that Noah is not only described as shut up within the ark, but as having very slight means of observing what was going on around. Had there been a deck, Noah would have known exactly the state of the flood, whereas, peeping only through the [tsohar], he seems to have been able to see but little, possibly because his sight was obstructed by the overhanging eaves of the roof. Thus, the freshly-plucked olive-leaf was like a revelation to him. But when these skins were taken off, there were numerous apertures through which he could obtain an uninterrupted view.”
John Charles Ellicott, Ellicott’s Commentary For English Readers, “Genesis 8:13.”
Matthew Henry:
“God consults our benefit, rather than our desires; He knows what is good for us better than we do for ourselves, and how long it is fit our restraints should continue, and desired mercies should be delayed. We would go out of the ark before the ground is dried; and perhaps, if the door, is shut, are ready to thrust off the covering, and to climb up some other way; but God’s time of showing mercy is the best time. As Noah had a command to go into the ark, so, how tedious soever his confinement there was, he would wait for a command to go out of it again. We must in all our ways acknowledge God, and set Him before us in all our removals. Those only go under God’s protection, who follow God’s direction, and submit to Him.”
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, “Genesis 8:13-19”
Matthew Henry’s non-concise Commentary on The Whole Bible adds:
“We should be satisfied that God’s time of showing mercy is certainly the best time, when the mercy is ripe for us and we are ready for it.”
Matthew Henry’s Commentary on The Whole Bible, “Genesis 8:13-14”
This all presents to us a problem. If it be so with Noah being effectively shut in the ark and he was unable to see much of anything until he removed the covering from the roof of the ark, how then did he release the birds? Does not Genesis 8:6 tell us Noah opened a window (challon)? How did he open a window and release a couple birds without this action providing a view of the great waters upon the land? This does presents some difficulty, but foremost one need be reminded to not think in modern terms and in doing so conceptualize any kind of contemporary window in place of challon. The raising of some glass pane, is not necessary in opening the window and likely the apparatus used to shut and open were mere wooden shutters. Still, how did Noah release the birds without seeing outside, or seeing very little? Sure, we can suppose a mikseh covered the window and Noah stopped short of raising it all the way by his honor and obedience to the Lord, or he shut his eyes, or it was foggy out, or any variety of things our imaginative minds can dream up. Yet, I propose a different solution to this conundrum. I began thinking about modern ship construction, and the devices used to provide ventilation to areas like an engine room, fuel tanks, and even exhaust. Water pouring into any of these, from either the sky or the sea, can be quite hazardous and I trust there be no need to go into detail on how this scenario would quickly prove itself problematic.
How ventilation or exhaust is provided for to minimize the threat of getting sea water or rain inside is, first, a straight vertical pipe is fabricated, and at the outside end of this pipe, a bend is added of varying degree, usually somewhere at or between 45-degrees or 180-degrees. Often it is so composed the open exposed or outside opening faces downward. This makes it rather difficult for water to get up inside. Once I thought about this, I pondered for a brief second if such a thing might be used as a window on the ark, but instead of it being vertical, it extended horizontally from the side of the ark. This would seem to satisfy all the criteria, but the thought only lasted the briefest of seconds because the Hebrew word challon wouldn’t be used for such a device given its clear usage in the rest of Scripture.
Even so, I can’t claim such a thing didn’t exist on the ark, vertical or horizontal, only make the conclusion it didn’t adequately provide a reasonable answer to the issue. On the other hand, a “pipe” of sorts need not be used to produce a similar effect. A method which could’ve been used, was to add large overhanging eaves to the challon. This would effectively extend downward past the bottom of the window at an acute angle relative to the window and certainly work to protect the window from water falling from the sky. Spray splashing upward from rough seas may be diverted as well, particularly if there is a extending sill. However, this would have its limitations and not provide protection from the sea for anything but spray and droplets. A large wave hitting the eave, assuming it wouldn’t break off, would funnel its force and volume into the window and likely demolish it. Yet, many suppose these challon were located on the upper deck and if a wave slammed into the ark of such a towering size, there might not be much which could withstand the conditions given the extent of technology.
Obviously we can’t be certain, but once more, this does satisfy our three criteria. It protects the window and interior of the ark from water getting in, it would limit the sight of Noah, and allow for the release and return of the birds. Plus, as a bonus, it makes more sense than a horizontal “pipe.”
Now, only because we have already opened the door to mistranslation, we should return to discuss the covering. The KJV says in Exodus:
Exodus 26:14, “And thou shalt make a covering [Hb. mikseh] for the tent of rams’ skins dyed red, and a covering [Hb. mikseh] above of badgers’ skins.”
The word rendered here as “badger” (Hb. takhash) is almost certainly a mistranslation. Though a majority of scholars find this in error, it oddly still appears in many illustrations and descriptions of the Tent of Meeting and the Tabernacle.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges remarks on this phenomenon:
“Though some such animal [badger] is advocated in the [Talmud, it] lacks philological foundation, and has no probability. It is doubtful also whether either seals or porpoises . . . are sufficiently common in either the Red Sea or [Mediterranean] to be the animals intended.”
One is seemingly bound to the conclusion of takhash being a sea animal for, in Arabic, the collective word for a number of sea creatures, as diverse as sharks, seals, and porpoise, is tukhash. Yet, creatures such as these purportedly didn’t exist in any real way anywhere along the route of Moses’ trek. Admittedly, it could be said this argument and its application to the ark relies on an assumption supposing the geographical habitats of flora and fauna remained consistent both prior and after the flood. It also compares or conflates the location(s) of Moses with the location(s) of Noah, both temporally and in physical orientation. This probably doesn’t impact our argument regardless because we are simply trying to find the composition of the coverings (Hb. mikseh) of Moses, if you will, and suggesting it be of the same material with the ark as the Tent of Meeting and Tabernacle. Regarding Moses and the use of skins upon the Tabernacle and Tent of Meeting a least one animal did exist in proximity and was referred to using the same name takhash. This was the dugong, or sometimes more commonly known as the sea cow. It actually makes quite a bit of sense. Consider the trade of dugong skins throughout and around the Arabian Peninsula long ago. While I know nothing about the properties of badger skins, it is said the skin of the dugong was remarkably resilient and waterproof. Good luck getting such a skin today because the sea cow is, happily, a protected species (as far as I am aware), but in ancient times their skin was prized for its water-repelling properties. A waterproof or water-resistant covering upon the Tabernacle, Tent of Meeting, and the ark would be the most advantageous being so open to the elements for such a period of time.
Some editions of the Holy Bible circumvent the controversy of animal identification, a debate not unheard of in the whole of Scripture, and focus not on what creature it may reference, but the probable characteristics of the skin itself. For instance, the NIV:
Exodus 26:14[NIV], “Make for the tent a covering [Hb. mikseh] of ram skins dyed red, and over that a covering [Hb. mikseh] of other durable leather [Hb. takhash].”
Where does this leave us in our exploration of the tsohar? I conclude the tsohar was a kind of skylight(s), with a possible shuttering feature, or ability to be open and closed through any various means (I offer this only as a consideration, not a necessary component). Above this window, a cubit above the roof in which in which it was set, a covering was spread over to allow for the necessary ventilation and light while still protecting from rain. This may have stretched to the sides of the ark to prevent water pooling up upon the skins and, depending on construction and how large the covering, add extra top weight to the vessel. A thing boats and ships generally try to avoid as a matter of principle, particularly when it comes to standing water which can shift, add weight, increase roll, etc. If this covering was flat, the water would likely pool up, pour out onto the open deck, and through the skylight.
A sturdy trust and a-frame arrangement of the skins could have been used, and this might even account for the odd Septuagint rendering of the ark “narrowing” in place of tsohar. Yet, earlier we proposed this might stretch to the edge of the ark, but when we contemplate it now, if this was the case, we end up having an issue with how light could have been provided if it was completely blocked with skins. Earlier, Albert Barnes mentioned the possibility of a parapet and such a thing might have been constructed around the tsohar, to allow for faculties of drainage on top of the ark. Thereby, the mikseh need not extend to the outer edge of the ark. Especially, if we are to assume a slant in the upper deck of the ark. Such a design, with a parapet, could keep water off the tsohar to a large degree while still allowing for light.
When we read the account of the Lord’s instructions to Noah for the build, we realize the instructions are rather basic (at least in what is recorded), and aren’t “Levitically” detailed, if you’d be so kind to allow me to try and coin a term. The Bible didn’t give us an exact comprehensive blueprint of the ark. I suggest Noah, by virtue of being given such an arduous and weighty task, probably wasn’t an idiot. As a point of fact, many hold the intelligence level before the flood was great, the intelligence of Adam and Eve even greater, and much of history represents the declivity of the human intellect. Whatever the case, the Lord told Noah what He was going to do before hand, and thus much would have been known to Noah about what be needed upon the ark and in its construction, simply by the revelation itself.
Although we don’t know all the details of the tsohar, or the ark, I think enough is provided we can reasonably gain general impressions on what the tsohar must have been or been like. Maybe we do not have enough details to conceptually reconstruct the tsohar completely free of doubt, or do so with an unyielding confidence, but we do have a sufficient amount to theorize and rationally contemplate it. I would hope these considerations provide the reader just a couple more possibilities for the meaning, make up, composition of the tsohar aboard the ark.
Brandon Devotional 