Moses says the Ark was made ‘of planed timber.’ The Septuagint translators have ‘of squared timber’; for planed and squared timbers are better fitted and joined together. But to be ‘planed’ and ‘squared’ does not denote any particular kind of wood; for it belongs to any kind of wood that it can be planed and squared. St. Jerome says that in the Hebrew it reads ‘of pitched timber.’ But in Hebrew ‘bitumen’ is Copher; in this place, however, it is Gopher — a word, namely, different and of a different signification. St. Augustine, in the sixth Tract on John, hands down that it is found in sacred Scripture that the ark of Noah was built of imperishable timber. But what is written of the Ark of Moses in Exodus, Augustine accommodated to this ark of Noah. Indeed Ambrose warns that here ‘timber’ is put simply, but in Exodus ‘imperishable.’ Some interpret ‘of boards of boxwood.’ But Pliny, in book 16, ch. 40, writes that boxwood is a most dense and therefore most heavy material, and so does not float on the waters. Oleaster, although he says that the word Gopher is of a signification unknown to the Hebrews, yet makes the conjecture himself that by that word is signified pitch, or the pine which bears pitch. For below, in chapter 19, the name gophrith is put, which is of the same root, for pitch or brimstone, when it is said that the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah pitch and brimstone and fire; and it is found in the same signification in Ezekiel, ch. 39, and in Isaiah, ch. 38. And although pine timbers, because they are easily corrupted by water, may therefore seem least fit for building that ark, nevertheless the inner parts of the pine are most firm and unconquered by waters. Thus Oleaster.²

But let us return to the word Gopher. That it is of a quite obscure and uncertain signification, and is nowhere else placed in Scripture, the Hebrews confess. Aben-Ezra (who deserves to be reckoned of the first class of Hebrew interpreters) says that he thinks by that word is signified a certain kind of wood, light and floating on the waters, yet impenetrable and incorruptible by them — though it is not clear to him of what species it is. Wherefore some thought it was fir or larch, which trees Pliny writes are of all the tallest and straightest, and, for sustain-…³

…ing weight in water, the strongest of all: for they resist, and are not easily broken, and fail by rot sooner than by their strength. Others believe it was the cypress, surpassing in durability, which Pliny so beautifully described: ‘For it is peevish, useless in fruit, grim with berries, bitter of leaf, violent of odor, of porous timber, of little grateful shade, sacred to Dis (Pluto), and therefore placed at houses as a funeral sign.’ Many think it was cedar; for the Chaldee paraphrast too renders in this place, ‘of cedar timber.’ Certainly Pliny relates that in Egypt and Syria the kings, for lack of fir, use cedar for their fleets. And cedar feels neither rot nor age, nor of itself takes crack or fissure. At Utica, in the temple of Apollo, beams of Numidian cedars endured in Pliny’s time just as they had been placed at the first founding of that city — that is, for one thousand one hundred and eighty-eight years.⁴

I judge that no one particular kind of wood was fit for building the whole ark, but that some woods were more suitable for building some parts of the Ark. And among the trees themselves there is a great difference of tallness, thickness, strength, lightness, and durability. And so the longer and more rigid suited chiefly the base; those of a lighter temper served excellently for the roofs; others nicely served for the joistings and planking of the stories; some, of tractable material, were especially adapted to interior work and small cuttings. Therefore, either Moses by that word Gopher did not wish to signify any one particular species of wood; or, if he did, it pertained not to the use of the whole construction of the ark, but only to its larger, firmer, and principal parts.⁵

But the reader will perhaps wonder how beams of such magnitude as would suffice for building so great a mass of ark could be found and procured. But he will easily lay aside his wonder if he considers that the base and the sides along the length of the Ark were not made of single beams extended lengthwise, which would equal and fill the whole length of the Ark, but of many beams joined together lengthwise, which were propped by other beams set crosswise according to the breadth of the Ark. This too will take away the wonder, which is handed down to memory by approved authors about the length of certain trees. Pliny affirms that in the principate of Tiberius there was seen at Rome a beam of larch a hundred and twenty feet long, two feet thick, uniform throughout — by which the rest of its height, scarcely credible, was understood by those estimating the taper to the top. In Cyprus a cedar was cut down for the eleven-banked galley of Demetrius, a hundred and thirty feet in length, and in thickness to the span of three men. That the robbers of Germany were wont to sail in single hollowed trees, so that some of them carried even thirty men, Pliny is the author in the same place. And the same writer, in book 7, ch. 2, writes marvels about the tallness of the Indian trees, saying that they cannot be overshot by arrows.⁶

Most praised in the sacred writings is the height of cedars; and so when…⁷

…divine Scripture wishes to magnify the tallness of anything, it compares it to the height of cedars, as may be seen in Ezekiel, ch. 31, and Amos, ch. 2, and David in Psalm 91, [who] compares the increases of the virtues and glory of just men with the growth and increase of cedars: ‘The just man,’ he says, ‘shall flourish like the palm; he shall be multiplied like the cedar of Lebanon.’ For this cause too the same Scripture calls them ‘cedars of God,’ namely on account of their excellent tallness; although, besides their height, the cedar’s scent and shade, and the firmness and durability of its material, are also eminently commended.⁸

But what follows, ‘Thou shalt make little rooms in the Ark,’ in Hebrew and Greek reads thus, ‘Thou shalt make the ark [into] nests,’ as though the whole ark were to be, as it were, a nest — that is, filled with many nests. And after the likeness of birds’ nests, the places destined for the habitation of the animals are called ‘nests.’ For the multitude and variety of the animals, places had to be built separately for their abode, diverse both in figure and in capacity; and besides these, cells too had to be constructed, where the foodstuffs that would suffice for one year, both for the animals and for the men, could be stored and preserved. And he called them ‘little rooms’ because the places were to be narrow — namely, such as would be enough for the animals to stay in, but not to range about or run to and fro at large.⁹