1

Joseph Triolo
Arizona Christian University

“The Tabernacle as Structurally Akin to Noah's Ark: Considering Cult, Cosmic Mountain,
and Diluvial Arks in Light of the Gilgamesh Epic and the Hebrew Bible.” Paper presented
at the Pacific Coast Regional Meeting of SBL. Fullerton, CA, 10 March 2019.

Abstract
Various scholars have noted conceptual parallels between Noah's ark, the tabernacle, and
Solomon's temple. When it comes to structural parallels, however, scholars generally affirm
those between Solomon's temple and Noah's ark, but they reject the possibility of a structural
parallel between the tabernacle and Noah's ark. Since the tabernacle is a tent it cannot exhibit the
same tripartite, vertical features seen in Noah's ark and the temple. Upon closer examination,
however, the tabernacle exhibits three sections horizontally which accord with Mount Sinai and
the cosmological features of ancient Near Eastern temples, cosmic mountains, and Utnapishtim's
ark of the Gilgamesh Epic. Therefore, despite axial differences, the structural parallel between
Noah's ark and the tabernacle sits comfortably within the context of the ANE and OT. This
unique historical and philological contribution to the field invites further readings of the
tabernacle texts and those related to Noah's ark in light of each other.

1. Introduction

From at least the fourth century A.D. through the Medieval period, Christian worship sanctuaries

reflected aspects of Noah’s ark.1 Church buildings were seen, in part, as Christological ‘arks,’ as

it were, that deliver God’s people safely through the deluge of God’s impending judgment.

Unsurprisingly, Old Testament (OT) scholars have found conceptual parallels between

Noah’s ark and Israel’s sanctuaries in the OT. Along with the conceptual parallels, discussed

below, some have discerned structural parallels between these edifices. One such structural

1
Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354–430) commented on the ark-like structure of churches in his day (John Wilkinson,
From Synagogue to Church: The Traditional Design: Its Beginning, Its Definition, Its End [Hoboken, 2014], p.
157). Alongside features of Noah’s ark, church buildings have also evidenced cosmological symbolism, which
relates to the considerations below (cf., e.g., Tobias Köllner, ‘Works of Penance: New Churches in Post-Soviet
Russia,’ in Oskar Verkaaik [ed.], Religious Architecture: Anthropological Perspectives [Amsterdam, 2013], p. 86)
See the art and writings of Hugh of St. Victor for whom ‘Noah’s ark is cognate with Temple’ (Jennifer A. Harris,
‘The Body as Temple in the High Middle Ages,’ in Albert I. Baumgarten [ed.], Sacrifice in Religious Experience,
[SHR 93; Leiden, 2002], p. 251 n. 76). Cf. also Conrad Rudolph, ‘First I Find the Center Point’: Reading of the
Text of Hugh of Saint Victor’s The Mystic Ark (Philadelphia, 2004), passim.
 2

parallel is that both Noah’s ark and Solomon’s temple have three vertical levels, aligning with

ancient Near Eastern (ANE), tripartite cosmic geography—according to Joseph Blenkinsopp

(and others below).2 The three-tiered structure of Noah’s ark is unambiguous, as God instructs

Noah to build it with lower (‫)תחתים‬, second (‫)שׁנים‬, and third (‫ )שׁלשׁים‬decks (Gen. 6.16).

Solomon’s temple is described as having “side chambers” around it, with lower (‫)התחתנה‬, middle

(‫)התיכנה‬, and third (‫ )השׁלישׁית‬stories (1 Kgs. 6.5–6; cf. Ezek. 41.5–6).3

As for the tabernacle in comparison to Noah’s ark, however, structural parallels have

been denied any significance. Blenkinsopp writes, ‘It seems we must renounce the attempt to

draw any significant conclusions from a comparison of the dimensions of Noah’s ark with those

of the wilderness sanctuary.’4 The reflection of the ‘three-decker world’ of ANE cosmology is a

‘feature which, for fairly obvious reasons, could not be reproduced in the wilderness sanctuary.’5

Since the tabernacle is a tent, so the rationale goes, it could not have three stories, paralleling

Noah’s ark in its vertical axis, and thus no structural parallel can exist.

For those unfamiliar with this scholarly conversation, I will review in some detail the

perceived connections between all three structures: the temple, tabernacle, and Noah’s ark. But I

propose to re-examine the idea that the tabernacle, in its one-storied construction, cannot bear out

a structural connection to Noah’s ark. This re-examination is based on a scholarly consensus

about Mt. Sinai’s structure vis-à-vis the tabernacle. Mt. Sinai exhibits three-tiered, vertical

delimitations, and these are said to be embodied in the tabernacle’s tripartite, horizontal sections.

The tabernacle is thus viewed as a mobile Mt. Sinai, and axis alone, it seems, has no bearing on

2
Joseph Blenkinsopp, ‘The Structure of P,’ in L. Michael Morales (ed.), Cult and Cosmos: Tilting Toward a
Temple-Centered Theology (BTS 18; Leuven, 2014), pp. 220–221 n. 50. For an example of a tripartite cosmological
view in Israel, see the second commandment of the Decalogue concerning graven images (Exod. 20.4).
3
See D.W. Gooding on this structure (‘Temple Specifications: A Dispute in Logical Arrangement between the MT
and the LXX,’ VT 17 [1967], pp. 143–172).
4
Blenkinsopp, ‘The Structure of P,’ p. 220.
5
Ibid., p. 221.
 3

this structural connection between Sinai and the tabernacle, but this realization has not, to my

knowledge, extended to the ark where axis is the reason to deny structural correspondence to the

tabernacle. Despite the tabernacle’s singular vertical form, it exhibits tripartite features that align

with ANE cosmic mountain ideology, cosmology, and comparable features of the flood story in

the Gilgamesh Epic—as we will explore below. The tabernacle’s tripartite structure can parallel

Noah’s ark given this comparative framework, despite the variation in their axial representation.

Solomon’s temple also might be seen as paralleling the ark through different structural

components than scholars have recognized.

Overall, this study uniquely contributes to understanding the cultic milieu of the flood

narrative, insofar as the ark may be further related to the central cultic sanctuary in the

Pentateuch, the tabernacle. On the other hand, this study also may support, at least, a literary

reading of the tabernacle texts with a view toward an ark-like preservation of Israel through the

wilderness and settlement periods.

2. Parallels between Israel’s Sanctuaries and Noah’s Ark

Now, concerning the parallels between Israel’s sanctuaries and Noah’s ark, I recount, first, the

(mostly conceptual) parallels, and then we move properly into the realm of structure, where I

seek to propose a modification.

a. Parallels of Concept

L. Michael Morales has written the lengthiest and most recent monograph supporting the idea

that the flood narrative prefigures the tabernacle. Through the framework of ANE cosmic

mountain ideology, Morales draws on the major voices below, and he expands upon their work
 4

in a variety of ways.6 For instance, John Sailhamer likens the salvation in Noah’s ark during

forty days of rain to the salvation via the tabernacle during forty years of Israel’s wilderness

wandering.7 Bruce Waltke and Cathi Fredricks relate the divine specifications of Noah’s ark,

along with those of the tabernacle and the temple, and they relate how these structures function

to preserve the covenant people amidst ‘chaos’—i.e., the Deluge and the nations, respectively.8

For another example, Meredith Kline regards Noah’s ark as a sanctuary in two senses, one

conceptual and the other structural: the ark is a refuge from the ‘stormy deep’ and it is a three-

storied microcosm, respectively. Kline notes that when Noah’s ‘ark–temple’ rests on the Ararat

Mount, it is the ‘temple of the new creation,’ a sort of primeval Zion.9 In this vein, T.E. Fretheim

perceives ‘striking parallels’ between the tabernacle and Noah’s ark: ‘both … are viewed as

means by which the people of God can move in a secure and ordered way beyond apostasy and

through a world of disorder on their way to a new creation.’10 The above scholars employ a more

textually-focused hermeneutic, yet some argue for an interrelationship between the tabernacle,

temple, and Noah’s ark source-critically, touching on the Priestly (P) stratum of tradition.11

According to Blenkinsopp, the terminus of the flood in P is ‘the Israelite version of the

cosmogonic victory of the deity resulting in the building of a sanctuary for him’ (cf. Ps. 29.10).

He compares this diluvial dénouement to the erection of the tabernacle at Shiloh after Joshua’s

conquests.12 Claus Westermann sees ‘profound meaning’ in the ark–tabernacle correspondence:

6
Morales argues convincingly that the Eden, flood, and the exodus sea-crossing narratives pre-figure the ideology of
the tabernacle (The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus [BTS 15; Leuven,
2012], passim).
7
The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (LBI; Grand Rapids, 1992), pp. 124–26.
8
Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, 2001), p. 152.
9
God, Heaven, and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos (Eugene, 2006), pp. 87–90.
10
‘“Because the Whole Earth is Mine”: Theme and Narrative in Exodus,’ Int. 50 (1996), p. 238.
11
That is, the Priestly author(s), redactor(s), or tradent.
12
‘The Structure of P,’p. 219.
 5

P looks to the Tabernacle,… as the goal of history which begins with the covenant with
Abraham and extends to the erection of the sanctuary in Jerusalem. The place where God
allows his glory to appear is the place whence the life of the people is preserved.
[Noah’s] ark corresponds to this in the primeval event where the concern is for the
preservation of humanity.13

In another source-critical reading, David Damrosch refers to Mt. Sinai as ‘a new Ararat,’ and he

argues that the Priestly writer(s) reframed the flood story to foreshadow the building Solomon’s

temple. The account of the building of the tabernacle is a more detailed foreshadowing of the

temple as the, admittedly enigmatic, ‘switch-point between the ark and the Temple.’14

From this review, one may notice that the parallels between the tabernacle and Noah’s

ark feature to a greater degree than those of the temple and Noah’s ark and are mostly

conceptual. The tabernacle and the ark have a movement toward a goal, whereas the temple on

Mt. Zion (or the Shiloh sanctuary, to an extent) features as the stable and fixed destination. The

temple is stationary, whereas Noah’s ark and the tabernacle are mobile.

Before attending the structural relationship, where the tabernacle is denied a place, some

more general connections stand to support this analysis.

b. Two Divinely-Patterned, Pentateuchal Structures

Many readings of the Priestly description of the tabernacle and Noah’s ark support a connection

between the two. Hermann Gunkel called the description of Noah’s ark ‘P’s native element,’15

and P, of course, is associated with the tabernacle. Blenkinsopp notes the formulaic language of

P, touching on common rhetorical features.16 The ‘execution’ formula is one such example of

13
Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, trans. John Scullion (London, 1984), p. 421; cf. Peter Weimar, Studien zur
Priesterschrift (FAT 56; Tübingen, 2008), p. 285.
14
The Narrative Covenant: Transformations of Genre in the Growth of Biblical Literature (San Francisco, 1987),
pp. 292–96.
15
Genesis, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Georgia, 1997), p. 144.
16
‘The Structure of P,’ pp. 209–10. Cf. also Sean McEvenue, ‘Word and Fulfilment: A Stylistic Feature of the
Priestly Writer,’ Semitics 1 (1970), pp. 104-110.
 6

which the ‘more solemn’ form occurs, among other occasions,17 after Noah constructs the ark

(Gen. 6.22; cf. 7.5) and when the tabernacle is completed (Exod. 39.32, 42–43; 40.16).18 Note

the parallel execution formula when Moses and Noah obey God’s command to build their

respective structures:

‫( ויעשׂ נח ככל אשׁר צוה אתו אלהים כן עשׂה‬Gen. 6.22)

And thus, Noah did; according to all that God commanded him, thus he did.

‫( ויעשׂ משׁה ככל אשׁר צוה יהוה אתו כן עשׂה‬Exod. 40.16)

And thus, Moses did; according to all that YHWH commanded him, thus he did.

Given the divine superintendence of these structures, Blenkinsopp sees a ‘correspondence

between the spatial and temporal axes of the work,’ arguing that reality may ‘rest on the word

first spoken at creation.’19 While a divinely-revealed ‘pattern’ (‫ )תבנית‬accompanies the tabernacle

and temple (Exod. 25.9, 40; 1 Chon. 28.11), Noah’s ark lacks this terminology. Nevertheless, the

ark is fashioned after divine blueprints that imitate the language of, at least, the tabernacle and

the temple, according to Sean McEvenue.20 Many also relate the post-diluvial new creation to the

establishment of the tabernacle and the temple in that they are all established on New Year’s Day

(Gen. 8.13; Exod. 40.2; 1 Kgs. 8.2).21 This relates the new cosmos after the flood to other ‘new

17
The only other ‘more solemn’ form after a construction follows that of the Menorah (Num 8:4; Blenkinsopp,
‘Structure of P,’ pp. 210–11). This formula occurs when Joshua allots the land (Josh. 14.5), hence the perceived link
between the tabernacle at the end of Joshua and the end of the flood.
18
Cf. Sailhamer, Pentateuch as Narrative, pp. 125–26.
19
‘The Structure of P,’ p. 211.
20
Sean McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (AB 50; Rome, 1971), pp. 44–45.
21
Blenkinsopp, ‘The Structure of P,’ p. 217. The MT, LXX, and 4Q252 agree in the dating (Helen Jacobus, ‘Flood
Calendars and the Birds of the ark in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q252 and 4Q254a), Septuagint, and Ancient Near
Eastern Texts,’ in Silverman [ed.], p. 87). For further chronological treatments, see Gordon Wenham, ‘The
Coherence of the Flood Narrative,’ VT 28 (1978), pp. 336–348; Niels Lemche, ‘The Chronology in the Story of the
Flood,’ JSOT 18 (1980), pp. 52–62. 1980; Lloyd Barré, ‘The Riddle of the Flood Chronology,’ JSOT 41 (1988), pp.
3-20; Philip Guillaume, ‘Sifting the Debris: Calendars and Chronologies of the Flood Narrative,’ in Silverman (ed.),
pp. 57–83. The ‘New Year’ of the temple is the autumnal New Year Festival, Sukkoth (cf. Lev 23:34), not the first
day of the first month.
 7

creations’ (i.e., cultic microcosms) in Israel. The dating, language, and posited source, therefore,

point to an intended relationship between these structures.

3. Shared Cosmic Symbolism

Now, I will survey further reasons why Noah’s ark is understood as evidencing a cultic milieu in

common with Israel’s sanctuaries and those of the ANE. Specifically, the common cosmic

symbolism is observed.

a. Temples and Noah’s Ark as Microcosms

If we go back two millennia in the reception history of cultic symbolism, Philo of Alexandria

understood the cosmos (κόσμον) as God’s temple (ἱερὸν θεοῦ) (Spec. 1.66). Conversely, temples

in antiquity had been viewed as microcosms.22 ‘One might almost formulate a law,’ writes Eric

Burrows, ‘that in the ancient East contemporary cosmological doctrine is registered in the

structure and theory of the temples.’23

The microcosmic representation of temples in the ANE seems to link Israel’s temples to

Noah’s ark.24 It is suggestive that Michael Fishbane writes of the ark, ‘As a cosmos in miniature

22
For Josephus (Ant. 3.123–50), the tabernacle reflects the cosmos. Similar ideas were found in the texts of Qumran
(James Davila, ‘The Macrocosmic Temple, Scriptural Exegesis, and the Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice,’ DSD 9 [2002],
pp. 1–19) and rabbinic texts, such as Pesiqta Rabbati (Rikva Ulmer, ‘The Jerusalem Temple in Pesiqta Rabbati:
From Creation to Apocalypse,’ Hebrew Studies 50 [2010], pp. 229–30).
23
‘Some Cosmological Patterns in Babylonian Religion,’ in Morales (ed.), p. 27. See also W.F. Albright,
Archaeology and the Religion of Israel: The Ayer Lectures of the Colgate-Rochester Divinity School (Baltimore,
1953), pp. 142–55; Jon Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (New York, 1987), p. 142; Moshe
Weinfeld, ‘Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord—The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1-
2:3,’ in A. Caquot and M.Delcor (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henrie Cazelles
(AOAT 12; Kevelaer, 1981); Raphael Patai, Man and Temple: In Ancient Jewish Myth and Ritual, 2nd ed. (New
York, 1967), pp. 55–139.
20
Even scholars of the broader humanities employ the Noah’s ark–microcosm idea. Commenting on Melville’s
Moby Dick, John Fiske calls Ahab’s ship ‘a microcosm, a Noah’s Ark’ (‘Herman Melville in Soviet Criticism,’
Comparative Literature 5 [1953], p. 37). G. Gerhardi comments on L’Education Sentimentale, writing, ‘the “Ville
de Montereau,” that nineteenth-century Noah's Ark, is of course a floating microcosm of industrial society’
(‘Romantic Love and the Prostitution of Politics: On the Structural Unity in L’Education Sentimentale,’ Studies in
the Novel 4 [1972], p. 413). Also, Jan Ziolkowski, commenting on Egbert of Liège’s eleventh-century work
Fecunda ratis, compares the animals streaming to Noah’s ark with an “intellectual microcosm” (‘A Fairy Tale from
Before Fairy Tales: Egbert of Liège’s “De puella a lupellis seruata” and the Medieval Background of “Little Red
Riding Hood,”’ Speculum 67 [1992], p. 556).
 8

[i.e., a microcosm], the ark providentially survives the universal destruction, so that its

inhabitants can serve as the nucleus for a renewed world.’25 In this vein, the description in 4

Maccabees 15.31–32 is likewise supportive of the microcosmic nature of the ark: Noah’s ark is

called the ‘carrier of the cosmos’ (κοσμοφοροῦσα).

Besides the major witnesses of antiquity, virtually all modern commentators recognize

the cosmogonic features of the flood narrative: the flood story is accepted as a re-creation

narrative.26 Noah’s ark is the cosmic bridge between de-creation and re-creation. Indeed, the ark

is a microcosm par excellence. Noah’s ark not only contains but also preserves all the remnant of

life and all food necessary for the flourishing of God’s creatures. It is the only exception to the

‘barren watery expanse’ of creation.27 With ‘its precious remnant tossed on the waters of

chaos’28 the ark preserves creation while moving towards the new creation.

So, besides Noah’s well-known priestly acts in the flood narrative, such as his collection

of sacrificial animals and his offering of a sacrifice, which indicate the cultic nature of the

story,29 his ark reflects something which is in common to ANE temples: Noah’s ark is a

microcosm. Since the structural connection between the tabernacle and Noah’s ark is not only

dependent on its cosmogonic or cosmic-geographical features, it may support the following

25
Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York, 1979), p. 30. See also Martin Ehrensvärd
who invokes the microcosm–ark relationship philologically to explain articular references to the dove and the raven
in Gen. 8.7–8 (‘Determination of the Noun in Biblical Hebrew,’ SJOT 14 [2000], p. 311).
26
See, e.g., David Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 10; Sheffield, 1997), pp. 80–82; Richard
Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible (CBQMS 26; Washington, 1994), p. 138.
Noah, accordingly, is compared to Adam (Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel [Oxford,
1985], pp.318–21; Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant, p. 127).
27
R.W.L. Moberly, ‘Why did Noah Send out a Raven?’ VT 50 (2000), pp. 351–52.
28
Bernhard Anderson, ‘From Analysis to Synthesis: The Interpretation of Genesis 1–11,’ JBL 97 (1978), p. 36.
29
Consider Noah’s collection of clean animals (Gen 7:2) and his sacrifice of these clean animals on behalf of all
creation (8.20–21), leading to the promises of the Noahic Covenant (8:22). The ‘restful’ sacrifice, which occurs only
here in Genesis, evidences its connection with ‘cultic law’ (Gordon Wenham, ‘The Akedah: A Paradigm of
Sacrifice,’ in David Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz [eds.], Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies
in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom [Winona Lake, 1995],
pp. 94–95).
 9

argument to discuss the features the ark has in common with the so-called ‘cosmic mountain.’

For this is where Holloway draws the connection between Noah’s ark and Solomon’s temple.

While it is granted that more work is necessary to unveil further cosmic mountain features in

Noah’s ark, the following considerations should suffice, as they reveal suggestive parallels

between Gilgamesh and the OT.

b. Temples as Cosmic Mountains

John Lundquist has described consistent features of ANE temple ideology in relation to the

cosmic mountain.30 His ‘propositions’ have met with regular acceptance.31 Two of Lundquist’s

propositions are: (1) ‘the temple is the architectural embodiment of the cosmic mountain,’32 and

(2) ‘the cosmic mountain represents the primordial hillock,… which first emerged from the

waters that covered the earth during the creative process.’33 The cosmic mountain, as is well-

known from R.J. Clifford’s work, is the meeting place of deities and the place where divine

decrees are issued.34 Mount Zion, of course, features as ‘cosmic,’ for Zion is YHWH’s inviolable

dwelling place,35 and it portrayed ‘the tallest mountain in the world’ despite being overshadowed

by taller mountains.36 Philo had described the Jerusalem temple with similar attributes to Mt.

Zion: the temple ‘made with hands’ (χειρόκμητον) is low-lying yet it exceeds all surrounding

30
‘What is a Temple? A Primary Typology,’ in H.B. Huffmon, F.A. Spina, and A.R.W. Green (eds.), The Quest for
the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall (Winona Lake, 1983), pp. 205–19; idem. ‘The
Common Temple Ideology of the Ancient Near East,’ in L. Michael Morales (ed.), pp. 49–67.
31
Lundquist’s propositions are said to be largely ‘uncontentious,’ theoretically describing ‘any sanctuary in the
ancient world’ (Nicholas Wyatt, The Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology and Religion in Ugaritic and Old
Testament Literature [Bibleworld; London, 2005], p. 215). See also Holloway, ‘What Ship Goes There?’ pp. 183–
208; Morales, Tabernacle Pre-Figured, pp. 157–61; Walter Brueggeman, Solomon: Israel’s Ironic Icon of Human
Achievement (SPOT; Columbia, 2005), pp. 87–88.
32
Cf. also R.E. Clements, God and Temple (Oxford, 1965), pp. 1–17.
33
Lundquist, ‘The Common Temple Ideology of the Ancient Near East,’ p. 52.
34
Richard J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (HSM 4; Cambridge, 1972), p. 3.
35
John Hayes, ‘The Tradition of Zion's Inviolability,’ JBL 82 (1963), pp.419–426; J.J.M. Roberts, ‘Zion in the
Theology of the Davidic–Solomonic Empire,’ in his, The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays
(Winona Lake, 2002), pp. 332–42.
36
Clifford, Cosmic Mountain, p. 3.
 10

high mountains (ὀρῶν οὐδενὸς ἀποδεῖ) (Spec. 1.67). This could indicate an early understanding

of the temple as the ‘architectural embodiment’ of Zion, aligning with Lundquist’s first

proposition.

c. The Mountainous Noah’s Ark

Although certain features of the Ararat Mount—where Noah’s ark rests at the end of the flood

narrative—may be comparable to the cosmic mountain, this cannot take our attention here.37 One

may observe, however, features of the cosmic mountain implicit in Noah’s ark. The description

of the ark’s floating on the waters ‘above all the high mountains’ (Gen. 7.17–20) indicates that it

is the highest peak of the world throughout the Deluge.38 When the ark lands on the mount, it

could conceivably remain the peak of the world as the waters recede around it. Read this way,

the ark could reflect the ‘primordial hillock’ of this re-creation story rather than the mount

itself.39

37
See Morales, Tabernacle Pre-Figured, pp. 144–146. For instance, it has been inferred that the Ararat Mount is
‘the highest mountain of the world,’ as Noah’s ark lands there before the mountain-peaks appear (Gerhard von Rad,
Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John Marks [OTL; London, 1961], p. 125). Kline posits that YHWH’s acceptation of
Noah’s burnt offerings shows YHWH’s presence on the mount, which seems also the place where the ‘effective
decree’ of God’s preservation of the cosmos issues forth (8.21–22) (Cosmos and Telos, p. 90). The Ararat Mount is
likened to the ‘primordial hillock’ emerging from the waters in the new creation (McCann, ‘Woven of Reeds,’ p.
124). Note: MT reads ‘the mountains of Ararat’ (Gen. 8.4), however, I refer to it as the ‘Ararat Mount’ passim. The
phrase (‫ )על הרי אררט‬may be a distributive plural, such as in Judges 12:7 when Jephthah is buried ‘in (one of) the
cities of Gilead’ (‫)בערי גלעד‬. On this, see Robert Gordis, ‘Job XL 29: An Additional Note,’ VT 14 (1964), p. 492.
Noah’s ark lands on the mountain before ‘the tops of [other?] mountains appear,’ which could single out that
mountain (Morales, Tabernacle Pre-Figured, p. 144).
38
Morales, Tabernacle Pre-Figured, p. 159.
39
Since the height of Noah’s ark is thirty cubits and the mountains are covered by only fifteen cubits of water, it
could theoretically land before the appearance of even the Ararat Mount (McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the
Priestly Writer, p. 55 n. 45). As Hermann Gunkel argues, the ark ‘was gliding precisely over the mountain at the
water’s high point and was grounded with the slightest fall of the water’ (Genesis, p. 146; cf. von Rad, Genesis, p.
125).
 11

4. Structural Parallels between Cosmic Mountains, Temples, and Arks

These ideological comparisons—between Noah’s ark, Israel’s sanctuaries, and cosmic

mountains—contextualize the close correspondence between the structure of Noah’s ark and the

tabernacle in conversation with the ziggurat and ark of the Gilgamesh Epic.

a. Utnapishtim’s Ark, the Mountain, and the Ziggurat

As is well known, the flood story in the Gilgamesh Epic variously parallels the Genesis flood

story.40 The ark of Utnapishtim provides a suggestive counterpart to Noah’s ark, for their

structural differences reflect differences between Mesopotamian and Israelite temples vis-à-vis

their respective sacred mountains.

The author of Gilgamesh portrays Utnapishtim’s ark as a floating ziggurat. The ark is

seven-tiered like the standard-issue Babylonian ziggurat.41 And in one passage, M.E.L.

Mallowan writes,42 ‘it was referred to as ekallu [Akk. temple or palace].’43 The design of the

ziggurat is interesting on its own terms, as it was elevated to preserve the shrine from flooding.44

Mesopotamian temples, generally, may have had an ‘aquatic past,’ linked with reed shrines upon

sea-faring vessels possibly in common with the (possible) representation of Noah’s ark.45 In

40
For comparisons between the Genesis and ANE flood stories, see David Tsumura, “Genesis and Ancient Near
Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood,” in Richard Hess and David Tsumura (eds.), I Studied Inscriptions from
Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11 (SBTS 4; Winona
Lake, 1994), pp. 27–57; and Ed Noort, ‘The Stories of the Great Flood: Notes on Gen 6:5–9:17 in its Context of the
Ancient Near East,’ in Florentino García Martínez and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen (eds.), Interpretations of the Flood
(TBN 1; Leiden, 1999), pp. 1–38.
41
Paul Haupt, ‘The Ship of the Babylonian Noah,’ BASS 10 (1927), p. 10.
42
‘Noah’s Flood Reconsidered,’ Iraq 26 (1964), p. 65.
43
Akkadian ekallu is the semantic equivalent of the Hebrew hêkāl (see L.R. Fisher, ‘The Temple Quarter,’ JSS 8
[1963], p. 35; Helmer Ringgren, Israelite Religion, Trans. by David Green [London, 1974], p. 159).
44
G.E. Wright, ‘The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East: Part III. The Temple in Palestine-Syria,’
BA 7 (1944), p. 66–67. Cf. also Mallowan, ‘Noah’s Flood,’ p. 65.
45
Leo Oppenheim, ‘The Mesopotamian Temple,’ BA 7 (1944), p. 54. Cf. also Haupt, ‘Babylonian Noah,’ p. 10.
Some connection to Genesis might be plausible if ‫ ִק ִנּים‬translated “rooms” (lit. ‘bird’s nest,’ LXX νοσσιά) was
originally ‫‘( ָק ִנים‬reeds’) (cf. Edward Ullendorf, ‘The Construction of Noah’s Ark,’ VT 4 [1954]; McCann, ‘Woven of
Reeds’; contra Westermann, Genesis 1-11, p. 420).
 12

correlation, the ziggurat, according to Mircea Eliade, ‘was literally a cosmic mountain,’ and its

seven tiers reflect the ‘seven planetary heavens.’46 Andrzej Wierciński has argued that ziggurats

reflect the archetypal cosmic mountain through the following observations: (1) the mountain-

related names of ziggurats;47 (2) their measurements vis-à-vis astronomical phenomena; and (3)

their cosmogonic characteristics.48

Holloway gives further reasons for the ark–ziggurat analogy. When Utnapishtim is forced

from dry land, he says, ‘I will go down to the apsû [i.e., the watery abyss], with Ea my lord I will

dwell’ (Gilg XI, 43).49 ‘The informed reader,’ writes Holloway, ‘would comprehend

Utnapishtim’s “going down” into the apsû as an allusion to his boat ride on the flood waters.’

The ark’s position upon the apsû aligns with the traditional locus of ziggurats, which were

founded upon the apsû.50 Following this, Utnapishtim offers his sacrifice ‘atop the mountain

ziggurat’ (Akk. ziq-qur-rat šadî, Gilg XI, 156)—a precise linguistic connection.51

Although he disagrees with Holloway about the shape of Utnapishtim’s ark, Ronald

Hendel acknowledges that the ark is ‘a seven-tiered cubic microcosm.’52 Hendel and Holloway

agree, at least, to cosmic temple associations.53 Thus, on any reckoning, Utnapishtim’s ark is

46
The Myth of the Eternal Return: Or, Cosmos and History, Trans. William R. Trask (Bollingen Series 46;
Princeton, 1957), p. 302.
47
The ziggurat is the ‘bond between heaven and earth’ (dur-an-ki) (Albright, ‘The Babylonian Temple-Tower and
the Altar of Burnt Offering,’ JBL 39 [1920], p. 140; Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, p. 302).
48
Andrzej Wierciński, ‘Pyramids and Ziggurats as Architectonic Representations of the Archetype of the Cosmic
Mountain,’ Katunob 10 (1977), pp. 83–87. Cf. also R.E. Clements, God and Temple (Oxford, 1965), pp. 2–3;
Thorkild Jacobsen, ‘Mesopotamia: The Cosmos as State,’ in H. and H.A. Frankfort, John Wilson, Thorkild
Jacobsen, and William Irwin (auths.), The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man: An Essay on Speculative Thought
in the Ancient Near East (Chicago, 1946), p. 129.
49
Holloway, ‘What Ship Goes There?’ pp. 196–97.
50
Burrows, ‘Cosmological Patterns in Babylonian Religion,’ p. 31. The language of ‘dwelling’ with Ea also
suggests a temple (Clifford, Cosmic Mountain, p. 25).
51
Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms,
Trans. Timothy J. Hallett (Winona Lake, 1997), p. 113.
52
‘The Shape of Utnapishtim’s Ark,’ ZAW 107 (1995), pp. 128–29. Holloway responds to Hendel in ‘The Shape of
Utnapishtim’s Ark: A Rejoinder,’ ZAW 110 (1998), pp. 617–26.
53
Wyatt, The Mythic Mind, p. 216.
 13

likely structured after the Babylonian architectural mountain, whether cubic or mountainous in

shape. This introduces the idea that despite structural variations between the ziggurat and

Utnapishtim’s ark, the temple and mountain ideology is taken as intentional.

b. Noah’s Ark, Sinai, and the Tabernacle

As Utnapishtim’s seven-tiered ark reflects the ziggurat, the Babylonian architectural mountain,

the three-tiered structure of Noah’s ark may display a similar relationship to the Israelite

architectural mountain, the tabernacle.

As noted above, Noah’s ark and Solomon’s temple have three vertical levels, and this

shows a common cosmological framework (comp. Gen. 6.16 and 1 Kgs. 6.6). The three levels

represent the ‘three-decker world in ANE cosmogonies.’54 In other words, Noah’s ark and

Solomon’s temple reflect the tripartite cosmic geography, i.e., the sea, land, and heavens.

Nicholas Wyatt also agrees that the three levels of Noah’s ark conform to the tripartite levels of

the cosmos.55

Blenkinsopp, again, argues that since the tabernacle is a tent and could allow only for a

single, vertical level, that there cannot be a structural relationship between the tabernacle and

Noah’s ark.56 And Morales—who has extended at length previous comparisons—grants the

structural relationship between Solomon’s temple and Noah’s ark. While this supports a cultic

understanding of the ark, Morales does not modify this structural parallel so as to include the

tabernacle, though he recognizes the tripartite structure of Noah’s ark and the tabernacle/Mt.

54
Blenkinsopp, ‘The Structure of P,’ p. 220.
55
Wyatt, The Mythic Mind, p. 215. Cf. Mircea Eliade, ‘Sacred Space and Making the World Sacred,’ in Morales
(ed.), p. 300; David Tsumura, Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old
Testament. Winona Lake, 2009, pp. 63–65.
56
Ibid.
 14

Sinai.57 Stephen Holloway, who draws from the Genesis flood narrative’s similarities to that of

the Gilgamesh Epic (ca. early second-millennium B.C.), 58 observes that Utnapishtim’s ark is

modeled after the Babylonian ziggurat: both have seven levels in common.59 In light of this ANE

parallel, Holloway argues that in the respective OT literature Noah’s ark reflects Solomon’s

temple.

This is the largely undisputed status quaestionis. But once the shared cosmic symbolism

has been understood, such as the microcosmic representation of these structures and the parallels

in Gilgamesh, the structural correspondence between the ark and the tabernacle is strengthened.

Axially, the correspondence between Solomon’s temple and Noah’s ark is vertical, but it

seems unnecessary on axial grounds alone to denounce a possible ark–tabernacle connection, for

there is another tripartite division in the tabernacle, which reflects Israel’s cosmology and the

Pentateuchal mountain, Mt. Sinai. This tripartite division accords with the respective portrayal of

Utnapishtim’s ark, mutatis mutandis. And this is where this reading seeks to modify the scholarly

consensus so as to include the tabernacle, structurally considered.

57
Morales, Tabernacle Pre-figured, pp. 147–52; 252–58. Jason McCann glosses over the tripartite divisions of the
tabernacle and Noah’s ark, but he likewise does not attempt to modify the ark–temple parallel (‘“Woven of Reeds”’:
Gen 6:14b as evidence for the Preservation of the Reed-Hut Urheiligtum in the Biblical Flood Narrative,’ in Jason
Silverman [ed.], Opening Heaven’s Floodgates: The Genesis Flood Narrative, its Context, and Reception [Biblical
Intersections 12; Piscataway, 2013], p. 125).
58
Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others: A New Translation by
Stephanie Dalley (OWC; Oxford, 2000), p. 45.
59
‘What Ship Goes There? The Flood Narratives in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis Considered in Light of Ancient
Near Eastern Temple Ideology,’ in Morales (ed.), pp. 183–208.
 15

In the tabernacle (or the ‘tent of meeting’),60 three sections take prominence: the ‘court’

(‫)החצר‬, the ‘holy place’ (‫)הקדשׁ‬, and the ‘most holy place’ (‫)קדשׁ הקדשׁים‬.61 Similarly, Mt. Sinai

exhibits three sections, assuming ‘the character of a sanctuary.’62

In Exodus 24, the locus classicus of the tripartite gradations of Sinai, YHWH commands

the ascent (‫ )עלה‬of Moses, Aaron, Aaron’s sons, and the seventy elders (v. 1). Moses alone,

however, can ‘draw near’ (‫ )נגשׁ‬to YHWH at Sinai’s summit, vertically (v. 2). This reflects the

high priest’s exclusive, horizontal and spatial entrance into the Most Holy Place annually (Lev.

16).63 All others who may ascend Sinai with Moses must ‘worship at a distance’ (v. 1b). They

cannot ‘draw near’ (‫( )לא יגשׁו‬v. 2b), just as the common priests cannot enter the Most Holy Place

in the tabernacle. The vertical positioning of Aaron, his sons, and the elders is, in turn, analogous

to the horizontal, spatial position of the priests who are allowed into the Holy Place.64 The people

at the base of Sinai are prohibited from ascending at all (‫( )לא יעלו‬v. 2b), which recalls the

tabernacle’s Outer Court, as does the altar at the base of Mt. Sinai (Exod. 24.4; cf. 27.9–19;

38.9–20).65 The terms ‫ נגשׁ‬and ‫ עלה‬unambiguously delimit the sacred gradations of YHWH’s

mountain abode in three sections just as the tabernacle’s spatial sections are delimited.66

60
Note: Although I generally refer to the ‘tabernacle’ it is, of course, regularly, though not always, interchangeable
with the ‘tent of meeting’ in the OT, unless otherwise qualified (cf. Menaḥem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service
in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School
[Oxford, 1978], pp. 271–72).
61
Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, p. 152; Nahum Sarna, Exodus (JPS Torah Commentary;
Philadelphia, 1991), p. 105; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics (Minneapolis, 2004), p. 31. See
Exod. 26.33–34; 27.9.
62
Other phenomena are common to Sinai and the tabernacle: (1) YHWH’s ‘descent’ on both, (2) YHWH’s oracles to
Moses, and (3) the ‘cloud’ and ‘fire’ (cf. Sarna’s references in Exodus, p. 105 nn. 21, 22, 23).
63
Gordon Wenham, ‘Hearing the Pentateuch,’ in Craig Bartholomew and David Beldman (eds.), Hearing the Old
Testament: Listening for God’s Address (Grand Rapids, 2012), p. 247. Cf. also Walter Dietrich, ‘Der Heilige ort im
Leben und Glauben Altisraels,’ in Jacques van Ruiten, and J. Cornelius de Vos (eds.), The Land of Israel in Bible,
History, and Theology: Studies in Honor of Ed Noort (VTSup 124; Leiden, 2009), p. 222.
64
Wenham, ‘Hearing the Pentateuch,’ pp. 244–45.
65
Sarna, Exodus, p. 105 n. 16.
66
For some early treatments of these delimitations, see Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. 2.91; 7.3; 28.2 [NPNF2 7:223,
230, 289]) and Athanasius (Ep. fest. 3.4 [NPNF2 4:514]).
 16

Sinai’s three-level vertical gradations, therefore, are reproduced architecturally and

spatially in the tabernacle—as Lundquist’s first proposition suggests for all ANE temples—

despite its single-storied, tent structure. In other words, axial variety does not detract from the

relationship between Sinai and the tabernacle, so why should it detract from the connection to the

ark, given the same comparative and ideological argument?

It has become commonplace to regard the tabernacle as a mobile Sinai.67 The

accompanying theophanies also link Sinai to the tabernacle (Exod. 24.15–17; 40.34).68 In this

‘portable Sinai,’ the tabernacle, God’s presence condescends and goes mobile ‘in the midst of an

on-the-move people.’69 The tabernacle thus considered is the Israelite version of architecturally

embodying Mt. Sinai, just as the ziggurat embodies the Mesopotamian sacred mountain.

As Sinai’s vertical divisions are reproduced in the tabernacle’s horizontal divisions, the

structure of Noah’s ark could mirror the tabernacle’s tripartite division without compensating for

axial variation. Structurally, then, one need not wholly renounce the connection with Solomon’s

temple, but the temple’s tripartite, spatial sections may serve to this end rather than its vertical

outer structure, which receives no prominence in Israel’s cultic law. In the temple, we read of the

‘outer chamber’ (‫)אילם‬, the ‘holy place’ (‫ היכל‬or ‫)הקדשׁ‬, and the ‘most holy place’ (‫ קדשׁ הקדשׁים‬or

‫)דביר‬.70 These sections are restrictive, in that ‘almost anyone could enter the “vestibule,” only

certain qualified people could enter the “nave,” and only the priest—the most holy person—

67
Michael Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord? A Biblical Theology of the Book of Leviticus
(NSBT 37; Downers Grove, 2015), p. 94. Cf. also Weinfeld, ‘Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord,’
p. 505.
68
Brevard Childs, Exodus. A Commentary (OTL; London, 1974), p. 40; Milgrom, Leviticus, p. 89.
69
Fretheim views this condescension as distant from YHWH’s early transcendence. The latter is ‘emphasized by the
number of mountain levels Moses ascends’ (‘Because the Whole Earth is Mine,’ p. 232). The difficulty of the
‘ascent’ into the Most Holy Place, however, remains (cf. Levenson, Sinai and Zion, pp. 15–16).
70
Ringgren, Israelite Religion, p. 159; see 1 Kgs. 6.3, 5, 16, 19; 8.6, 8.
 17

could enter the “holy of holies.”’71 So, in any case, if the temple parallels Noah’s ark, one might

imagine that these horizontal, spatial sections would be the place to look.

This study, it should be noted, is not to argue that Noah’s ark is a temple or has sacred

gradations, but that it evokes the tripartite spatial divisions of Israel’s sanctuaries, now including

the tabernacle. It comes without shock that others have attended the idea that Noah’s ark (‫ )תבה‬is

not described as a ship but as a house.72 This lends credence to the idea that Noah’s ark should be

interpreted cultically, as bearing temple associations, but the converse might be true: the

tabernacle may be viewed as Israel’s ‘ark,’ preserving them by God’s presence in their midst.

5. Conclusion

It seems the convergence of ark symbolism, cosmological features, and the structure of early

Christian and Medieval worship sanctuaries find their counterpart, if not their roots, in antiquity.

On the whole, the conceptual idea in antiquity that temples are microcosms reflecting the cosmic

mountain lends credence to the structural comparisons which have been drawn. This study stands

to strengthen the variety of connections noted between Israel’s sanctuaries and Noah’s ark,

perhaps especially the work by Morales who argues that that flood narrative, inter alia,

prefigures the tabernacle. The tabernacle and Noah’s ark are both mobile, Pentateuchal

structures, whereas the temple bears, perhaps, a wider, Deuteronomistic connection to Noah’s

ark. Blenkinsopp, and Holloway have picked up on a significant structural parallel between the

71
Brueggemann, Solomon, p. 89.
72
Weimar, Studien zur Priesterschrift, p. 285. Chayim Cohen (‘Hebrew tbh: Proposed Etymologies,’ JANES 4
[1972], pp. 36–51) addresses the common etymological connection between the Hebrew ‫ תבה‬and the Egyptian ḏbꜢt.
While others have argued that the two glyphs representing ḏbꜢt are different words, Cohen dissents, for the b glyph,
in one of the glosses, is merely a phonetic complement. Semantically, ḏbꜢt ranges from ‘palace’ to ‘coffin,’ having
little to do with boats (for the lack of an aquatic-sign determiner), thus Cohen rejects the etymology for ‫תבה‬. The
palace gloss is a suggestive in light of the Akkadian ekallu (‘palace’) employed of Utnapishtim’s ark, but the
‘coffin’ (or ‘box’) gloss fits better the only other occurrence of ‫ תבה‬in the OT—Moses’s ‘basket’ (Exod. 2.3, 5).
 18

temple and Noah’s ark, but even this, it seems, should be understood in relation to the temple’s

horizontal, spatial sections rather than the vertical outer structure.

Noah, the primeval priest, builds a divinely-ordained ark for the preservation of the

chosen family and all of humankind. The ark, like Israel’s sanctuaries, is a tripartite microcosm.

The restrictive structure of the tabernacle, as a single-storied tent, need not preclude the

structural relationship with Noah’s ark because of axial differences. In light of the parallel with

Utnapishtim’s ark—which is seven-tiered like the Babylonian cosmic mountain and its

embodiment, the ziggurat—Noah’s ark with its three vertical levels aligns perfectly, mutatis

mutandis, with the respective tripartite divisions of the tabernacle, the embodiment of Mt. Sinai.

It is difficult to say whether this reading will support the understanding of Noah’s ark as a

Primeval tabernacle or the tabernacle as Israel’s ‘ark,’ as it were, of the wilderness and conquest

periods. The evidence supports reading both structures in relation to each other. But a few

observations seem evident: the close canonical proximity of the tabernacle and Noah’s ark along

their relationship to Sinai, also in the Pentateuch, bear greater semblances to the ANE portrayal

of Utnapishtim’s ark, the ziggurat, and the cosmic mountain than do the temple—as a general

embodiment of the cosmic mountain—and Noah’s ark.

For further study, if the tabernacle has this intended parallel with Noah’s ark, supported

generally in light of ANE literature and, particularly, in the respective OT literature, it may be

fruitful to explore just how far this parallel might go. Is there an intended telos to the tabernacle’s

journey, from a Hexateuchal perspective, at Shiloh? Or might the journey end,

Deuteronomistically considered, at Mt. Zion? Interestingly, both the end of the Book of Joshua

and the erection of the temple in Jerusalem are pervaded with the idea of ‘rest’ and peace from
 19

the enemies of Israel.73 Such rhetoric also pervades the flood narrative when the ark comes to

‘rest’ on the Ararat Mount, and Noah, whose name evokes the idea of rest, offers up his ‘restful

aroma’ to the YHWH, bringing cosmic peace.74 Is the tabernacle, as described in the OT, intended

to preserve Israel to a restful dénouement on the holy mount, giving way to the temple, such that

Noah’s ark foreshadows its journey?

73
See, e.g., the classical treatment in Gerhard von Rad’s article, ‘There Remains Still a Rest for the People of God:
An Investigation of a Biblical Conception,’ in his The Problem of the Hexateuch and other Essays, Trans. E.W.
Trueman Dicken (Edinburgh, 1966), pp. 94–102.
74
See, e.g., Frank H. Polak, ‘The Restful Waters of Noah,’ JANES 23 (1995), pp. 69–74.