Bill Crousea
Noah and his ark is from a late 13th-century Hebrew Bible and Prayer book in the British Library.
Since the early 1950’s the search for Noah’s Ark has been the subject of many books and movies.1 What gave rise to this interest was the distinct possibility that actual remains of Noah’s Ark might have been found. The spark which set off this burning interest among Christians was the claim in 1948 of an eyewitness who said he stumbled onto the Ark high on the snowcap of Mt. Ararat.2 Since that time others have made similar claims. Based on these alleged eyewitness accounts many expeditions have been launched, countless hours have been spent in research, and large sums have been spent to verify what many critics said was an impossible quest.
More recently in the decade of the Eighties, Col. James Irwin, the late moon-walking astronaut and his associates, combed most of the mountain on foot. Still not satisfied, they surveyed and photographed the mountain with various aircraft. While the efforts of Irwin and others have received much attention from the media, there is still no tangible evidence of an ark on Ararat. Indeed, many who have been involved in the search, are now becoming convinced that the Ark: 1) may have merged with the elements, or 2) God may not want it revealed at this time.3
In this article I would like to propose a third reason why the search for Noah’s Ark has been unsuccessful, namely, that it may have landed on another mountain and the remains may no longer be extant. From the perspective of history, there seems to be compelling ancient sources which argue for another site as the final berth of Noah’s Ark. Before we look at this evidence, it might be helpful to the readers of Archaeology and Biblical Research if we give some of the reasons why the search has been concentrated on Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey.
FIRST, and foremost, are the alleged eyewitness accounts. If it weren’t for these, it is doubtful if a search would ever have arisen on the mountain the Turks call “Agri Dagh” and the Armenians, “Masis.”
A SECOND reason given for searching for remains of Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat, is its altitude. At nearly 17,000 feet it has a permanent icecap which would lend itself to the Ark’s preservation.4 Indeed an Ark perpetually frozen in ice would never decay. It could lie undisturbed for thousands of years.5
BSP 5:3 (Summer 1992) p. 67
The THIRD reason given has to do with the level of the Flood waters. Since Mt. Ararat is the highest mountain in the region it is assumed by some that the Ark must have landed on the highest mountain since Noah could not see the tops of any other mountains for some time after the Ark grounded.
After the many expeditions of the last several years, some questions should now be raised about the above reasons for looking for the Ark on Ararat. The eyewitness accounts have not been helpful in locating the lost artifact. The accounts are often contradictory, and under close scrutiny most are suspect. Some of the sightings have been made by pilots who appear to be of reputable character. However, these sightings, in our opinion, are explainable by the fact that the mountain has an abundance of large blocks of basalt, and when seen under the right conditions, they can easily resemble a huge barge.6
Some question the age of the mountain itself. Is it not of recent origin? That is, was it not formed after the Great Flood? There seems to be almost a total lack of evidence this mountain was ever under water.7 If the Ark landed on Ararat, why is there not some evidence of flooding such as sedimentation, fossils, etc.? Geologically, we can conceive of a scenario where the mountain may have risen during the Flood, but we still need evidence of the Flood waters.
Others have been attracted to the mountain because of its altitude and its ability to hide and preserve the Ship in its icecap. Certainly this could be a valid reason, and it is one that this author once maintained. However, we again have geological problems in that the permanent icecap is not stationary.8 It flows down the mountain in several glacial fingers. Any structure would be gradually destroyed because of the uneven rate with which a glacier flows. Like water in a river, a glacier flows faster on the surface than near the bottom.
In conclusion, it is difficult to be optimistic that remains of the Ark of Noah might someday be found on Mt. Ararat. Not only has it been thoroughly searched in recent years, an intact Ark 500 feet in length would be difficult to hide! Given the geological reasons, and the dubious eyewitness accounts, there are compelling historical reasons for believing that Noah’s Ark will never be found on Mt. Ararat. We now turn to these arguments.
If Noah’s Ark did indeed land on the 17,000 foot peak of Mt. Ararat one should reasonably expect this event to have support from antiquity. When the search for Noah’s Ark became a hot topic in the early ‘70s, this was assumed to be the case. Evangelical scholar, Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, argued this case in his well-documented book: The Quest for Noah’s Ark. It is our contention that Montgomery erred in his interpretation of these sources.
As some readers may know, the Bible only gives a general reference to the landing place of the Ark. Many enthusiasts of the Ark search, however, mistakenly believe the Bible names Mt. Ararat as the Ark’s specific resting place. This is not the case. The Bible says only that the Ark came to rest on “the mountains (plural) of Ararat” (Gn 8:4). At the
BSP 5:3 (Summer 1992) p. 68
The kingdom of Urartu (Ararat) was within the dotted lines.
time Moses wrote Genesis “Ararat” was a very remote region north of Assyria centered around present-day Lake Van. Modern archaeological studies have pretty well delineated the boundaries of this ancient kingdom. (see map).9 A careful study of the historical sources indicates that the earliest undeniable (a key word) reference for Ararat as the landing site of Noah’s Ark is the middle of the 13th Century AD.10 By the end of the 14th century it seems to have become a fairly well established tradition. Prior to this time the ancients argued that the remains of the Ark of Noah could be found on a mountain known as “Cudi Dagh.” Let us look now at the evidence of what we believe are those compelling ancient sources.
Cudi Dagh is located approximately 200 miles south of Mt. Ararat in southern Turkey almost within eyesight of the Syrian and Iraqi borders.11 The Tigris River flows at its base. The exact coordinates are 37 degrees, 21 minutes N, and 42 degrees, 17 minutes E. In literature it has also been called “Mt Judi,” “Mt. Cardu,” “Mt. Quardu,” “the Gordyene mountains,” “Gordian mountains,” “The Karduchian mountains,” “the mountains of the Kurds,” and to the Assyrians: “Mt. Nipur” (see photo #1). It is also important to note that at times this mountain has even been called “Mt. Ararat.” At about 7000 feet altitude it is not a terribly high mountain, though it is snow-capped most of the year. The current edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam lists it as “over 13, 000 feet and largely unexplored.” We are unsure of the exact altitude, but it seems strange that it would not be noted on modern aerial navigation maps if it were 13,000 feet!
Most modern maps do not show the location of Cudi Dagh. It is, however, located about 25 miles from the Tigris River (see map), just east of the present Turkish city of Gizre and still within the bounds of the Biblical region of Ararat (Urartu).12
Cudi Dagh overlooks the all-important Mesopotamian plain and is notable for its many archaeological ruins in and around the mountain. There are also many references to it in ancient history.13 Sennacherib (700 BC), the Assyrian king, carved rock reliefs of himself on the side of the mountain (see photo #2).14 The Nestorians (a sect of Christianity) built several monasteries around the mountain including one on the summit called “The Cloister of the Ark.” It was destroyed
BSP 5:3 (Summer 1992) p. 69
Photo 1: The rugged Gordian mountains – berth of the Ark?
by lightning in AD 766.15 The Muslims later built a mosque on the site. In 1910, Gertrude Bell explored the area and found a stone structure still at the summit with the shape of a ship (see photo #3) called by the locals “Sefinet Nebi Nuh,” “The Ship of Noah.” Bell also reports that annually on September 14, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sabians and Yezidis gather on the mountain to commemorate Noah’s sacrifice.16 As late as 1949 two Turkish journalists claimed to have seen the Ark on this mountain, a ship 500 feet in length!17
The evidence for this site as the landing place of Noah’s Ark is not so strong that it demands a verdict, yet it is compelling. If all we had were the ancient references, the evidence for the site easily outweighs the evidence for Mt. Ararat (excluding modern sightings of course).
These ancient witnesses are:
Berossus. A Chaldean priest and historian (3rd Century BC). His writings were published about 275 BC in Greek but his work survived only as far as it was quoted by others, notably, Polyhistor (1st Century BC), and by Josephus (1st Century AD). He is also quoted by a few others as late as the 5th Century AD. Berossus’ account is basically a version of the Babylonian Flood account. He notes that the Ark “.. . grounded in Armenia some part still remains in the mountains of the Gordyaeans in Armenia, and some get pitch from the ship by scraping off, and use it for amulets.” Some believe that Berossus was acquainted with both the Hebrew version, which puts the Arkin Armenia (Urartu), and the Babylonian, which puts the Ark in the Gordyaean mountains. They conclude the reason he mentions both territories is that he is trying to reconcile the two accounts. This may be true, but it is an argument from silence. The fact is, this location, Cudi Dagh, is both in the Gordyaean mountains and within the borders of ancient Armenia (Urartu)! It may be that Berossus is just trying to be precise.
The Samaritan Pentateuch. This manuscript contains only the first five books of the Old Testament. It puts the landing place of Noah’s Ark in the Kurdish mountains north of Assyria. The Samaritan Pentateuch was the Bible used by the Samaritans, a Jewish sect who separated from the Jews about the 5th Century BC. Ancestry-wise, they were of mixed blood dating back to the time the Assyrians deported many from the
BSP 5:3 (Summer 1992) p. 70
Photo 2: Sennacherib’s carved relief near Judi Dagh.
Northern Kingdom. The Assyrians then colonized the area with citizens from Assyria. The Samaritans were a result of the intermarriage between the Jews who were not deported and these new Assyrian colonists. Their version of the Pentateuch shows a definite propensity to update geographical places and harmonize difficult passages. There is much evidence that the Samaritan Pentateuch was formulated during the 5th Century BC though the earliest manuscript extant today dates to about the 10th century AD.
The Targums. The targums are paraphrases in Aramaic which were made for the Jews after they returned from the captivity in Babylon (See Nehemiah 8:8). After their long captivity many of the Jews forgot their native tongue (Hebrew) only understanding the language (Aramaic) of their former captors. These paraphrases were originally oral. They were rather loose paraphrases and, in some instances were like running commentaries. These targums later attained a fixed form and were written down and preserved. They give Bible scholars a valuable tool for textual criticism and interpretation. Three of these targums (Onkelos, Neofiti, and pseudo-Jonathan) put the landing place of the Ark in the Qardu mountains. It should be remembered that this mountain was not far from where some of these Jews spent their captivity! They probably did not know of the kingdom of Ararat since this kingdom had ceased to be around the 7th Century BC.
Josephus. First Century AD. Josephus was a man of Jewish birth who was loyal to the Roman Empire. He was a man of great intellect and a contemporary of the Apostle Paul. As the official historian of the Jews for the Roman Empire he had access to all the archives and libraries of the day. He mentions the remains of Noah’s Ark three times. All are found in the Antiquities of the Jews. The first is found in Vol. IV on p. 43 of the Loeb edition.18 Here he says:
Then the ark settled on a mountain-top in Armenia:. .. Noah, thus learning that the earth was delivered from the flood, waited yet seven days, and then let the animals out of the ark, went forth himself with his family, sacrificed to God and feasted with his household. The Armenians call that spot the Landing-place, for it was there that the ark came safe to land, and they show the relics of it to this day.
BSP 5:3 (Summer 1992) p. 71
Comments:
First, note that Josephus says the remains of the Ark existed in his day though he himself was not an eyewitness. Second, mention of the Armenians assigning a name to the landing site is intriguing, even that he calls them “Armenians.” They were first called Armenians by the Greek historian, Hecataeus, who wrote of the “Armenoi” in the 6th Century BC. Josephus, who also undoubtedly used the Septuagint (the Greek version of the OT), knew that it substituted “Armenia” for “Ararat” (in the Hebrew original) where it occurs in Isaiah 37:38. At the time Josephus wrote (near the end of the First Century), the Armenians were still a pagan nation. However, there is a tradition that some Armenians were being converted at this time through the missionary efforts of Bartholomew and Thaddeus. The big question: was Josephus quoting Christian Armenians at this early date? Or, did pagan Armenians know of the Flood? Nevertheless, it might be significant if the Armenians had this tradition at this early date. We continue to search for the evidence.
Third, concerning the Armenian name for the landing place, William Whiston, in his translation of Josephus, has the following footnote:
This apo bah tay reon or “Place of Descent”, is the proper rendering of the Armenian name of this very city. It is called in Ptolemy Naxuana, and Moses Chorenensis, the Armenian historian, Idsheuan; but at the place itself Nachidsheuan, which signifies “The first place of descent,” and is a lasting monument of the preservation of Noah in the Ark, upon the top of the mountain, at whose foot it was built, as the first city or town after the flood. See Antiq. B. XX. ch. II. sect. 3; and Moses Chorenensis, who also says elsewhere, that another town was related by tradition to have been called Seron, or, “The Place of Dispersion,” on account of the dispersion of Xisuthrus’ or Noah’s sons, from thence first made. Whether any remains of this ark be still preserved as the people of the country suppose, I cannot certainly tell. Mons. Tournefort had, not very long since, a mind to see the place himself, but met with too great dangers and difficulties to venture through them.
Photo 3
BSP 5:3 (Summer 1992) p. 72
Whiston wants to identify “the place of descent” (apo bah tay reon in Greek) with the modern day city of Nakhichevan situated southeast of Ararat about 65 miles in the former U.S.S.R. Ark researchers in the past have used this footnote as a seemingly early evidence for Mt. Ararat being the site for the Ark’s landing.19 However, we must ask if this is the intent of Josephus, or the 18th Century interpretation of Whiston (from his footnote)? There seems to be linguistic and other evidence that such is not the case. First of all, to identify the current Mt. Ararat as the landing place of the Ark, as per the footnote of Whiston, is contrary to Josephus clearly identifying it as a mountain in Gordyene. Second, the early Armenian historians identified the Gordyene (“Gortuk”) mountains as the landing place of Noah’s Ark at least up to the 11th and 12th centuries.20 Thirdly, according to the Armenian language scholar, Heinrich Hubschmann, the city of Nakhichavan, which does mean “Place of First Descent” in Armenian, was not known by that name in antiquity. Rather, he says the present-day name evolved to “Nakhichavan” from “Naxcavan.” The prefix “Naxc” was a name and “avan” is Armenian for “town.”21
The second, and perhaps most important reference is found on page 45 of the Loeb edition and is a quote from the above-mentioned Chaldean priest, Berossus.22 We quote here the entire paragraph:
This flood and the ark are mentioned by all who have written histories of the barbarians. Among these is Berosus the Chaldaean, who in his description of the events of the flood writes somewhere as follows: “It is said, moreover, that a portion of the vessel still survives in Armenia on the mountain of the Cordyaeans, and that persons carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they use as talismans.” These matters are also mentioned by Hieronymus the Egyptian, author of the ancient history of Phoenicia, by Mnaseas and by many others. Nicolas of Damascus in his ninety-sixth book relates the story as follows: “There is above the country of Minyas in Armenia a great mountain called Baris, where, as the story goes, many refugees found safety at the time of the flood, and one man, transported upon an ark, grounded upon the summit; and relics of the timber were for long preserved; this might well be the same man of whom Moses, the Jewish legislator, wrote.”
Again, note that Josephus is not an eyewitness. Rather he is quoting all the ancient authorities he had access to, most of whom are no longer in existence, and indeed are known only from his quotations of them. It is impressive to this researcher, that Josephus seems to indicate there is a consensus among the historians of his day, not only about the remains of the Arkstill existing, but also concerning the location.
Josephus also quotes the work of Nicholas of Damascus, the friend and biographer of Herod the Great. Nicholas claimed that he put great labor into his historical studies and apparently had access to many resources. It is possible he was one of Josephus’ main sources. His story of the Flood, however, deviates
BSP 5:3 (Summer 1992) p. 73
from the Biblical account in that he has some surviving the Flood outside the Ark. His location for the final resting place of the Ark seems to be in harmony with the Gordyene site. He claims the Ark landed above Minyas on a great mountain in Armenia. According to ancient geographers, Minyas was a country slightly below and to the east of Armenia, below present day Lake Urmia in Iran. The name he gives this mountain, “Baris,” is a mystery. According to Bailey, the Greek word baris means “height,” or “tower,” and can also mean “boat”!23 The third reference to the remains of the Ark is found in Vol. XX, pg. 403 of the Loeb ed.24
Monobazus, being now old and seeing that he had not long to live, desired to lay eyes on his son before he died. He therefore sent for him, gave him the warmest of welcomes and presented him with a district called Carron. The land there has excellent soil for the production of amomum in the greatest of abundance; it also possesses the remains of the ark in which report has it that Noah was saved from the flood — remains which to this day are shown to those who are curious to see them.
The context of this citation of the Ark’s remains has to do with a certain royal family (King and Queen of Adiabene) who converted to Judaism. In the immediate context of the above citation, Monobazus, the man who converted, gives his son, Izates, the land of Carron. The clues given as to the location of the Ark’s remains in this passage are not unequivocable. The remains are said to be somewhere in a country called Carron which must be found in the greater country of Adiabene. Why? Because the king could not have given what was not his, therefore, Carron must be found within Adiabene.
It is fairly certain that Adiabene is bounded by the Tigris on the west and the Upper (north) and Lower (south) Zab Rivers. Today this would be northeastern Iraq. The land of Carron presents some difficulties. It is mentioned only by Josephus. There does seem to be some doubt about the text here since the Loeb edition emends the text to read “Gordyene” where the same “Carron” is mentioned elsewhere in Antiquities.25 If this is the case, then Josephus is not giving us a second location for the remains of Noah’s Ark. He may have associated Adiabene with Gordyene since they were next to each other. There is precedent for this. Pliny, a Roman author and contemporary of Josephus, places the city of Nisibis in Adiabene when it is actually located to the west of Gordyene (Natural History, 6.16). It is interesting to note also that Hippolytus (2nd Century) agrees. He says, “The relics of the Ark are. .. shown to this day in the mountains called Ararat, which are situated in the direction of the country of Adiabene. This would be correct since he wrote from Rome” (Refutation of All Heresies, 10, Chapter 26).
From the above there seems to be grounds for arguing that Josephus pinpoints the Gordyene site (Judi Dagh) as the landing place of Noah’s Ark. While we cannot say this with absolute certainty, we feel we can conclude that
BSP 5:3 (Summer 1992) p. 74
nowhere does Josephus say anything definitive that might lead us to assume that present-day Mt. Ararat is in view. We also disagree with Bailey who believes that Josephus gives three different locations for the Ark’s final resting place.26
Eusebius. In the 3rd Century AD this early church father notes that a small part of the Ark still remains in the Gordian mountains.
The Pershitta. The Pershitta is a version of the entire Bible made for the Syrian Christians. Scholars are not sure when it was translated but it shows up for the first time around AD 400. In Genesis 8:4 it reads “mountains of Quardu” for the resting place of Noah’s Ark. This version shows a definite influence from the Targums mentioned above.
Faustus of Byzantium. Faustus was a historian of the 4th Century AD. Very little is known about him except that he was one of the early historians of Armenia, though he was of Greek origin. His original work is lost but has survived through translations.
It is from Faustus that we first hear the story of St. Jacob of Nisibis, the godly monk who asks God to see the Ark.27 After repeatedly failing to climb the mountain an angel rewards him with a piece of wood from the Ark. It is this story that is off-quoted in succeeding centuries, and the location given for the event in these later sources is Mt. Ararat. However, please note, Faustus, the one who presumably originated the story, puts this event not on Mt. Ararat, but in the canton of Gordukh. The St. Jacob of the story is the Bishop of Nisibis (modern Nusaybin) a city which is only about 70 miles (not quite within sight) from Cudi Dagh.28
Mt. Ararat to the bishop would have been near the end of the known world. If Faustus had meant this mountain he undoubtedly would have called it by its Armenian name of “Masis” as he does elsewhere in his work. Armenian historians are in agreement that the early Armenian traditions indicated the southern location as the landing place of the Ark.29 Until the 10th Century all Armenian sources support the southern location as the landing place of the Ark.
Wouldn’t it be strange for the Syrian bishop to ignore what his own Syrian Bible (the Pershitta) told him was the landing place of Noah’s Ark? Also, St. Jacob’s own student, St. Ephraem, refers to the site of the landing as “the mountains of Qardu.” It is hard to believe that one of his intimates could be that confused! The natives of the area even today tell the story of St. Jacob, the Bishop, and similar traditions associated with Mt. Ararat, i.e. the city built by Noah and his grave, etc.30
Epiphanius. The Bishop of Salamis and a fierce opponent of heresy (a real heresy hunter!) in the 4th Century AD. On two occasions he mentions that the Ark landed in the mountains of the Gordians. In fact he says the remains are still shown and that if one looks diligently he can still find the altar of Noah.
Isidore of Seville. 6–7 Century AD. He is quoted in the 16th Century as saying the Ark landed in the Gordyaean mountains.
Eutychius. Bishop of Alexander in the 9th Century. He says, “the Ark rested on the mountains of Ararat, that is Jabal Judi near Mosul.” Mosul is a city near ancient Ninevah about 80 miles south of Cudi Dagh.
Muslim sources:
The Quran. 7th Century. The Quran says: “The Ark came to rest upon AlJudi. . .” (Houd 11:44). The Modern Muslim Encyclopedia is familiar with the early traditions that the Ark came to rest on Cudi Dagh. However, the writer of the article under “Jebel Judi” believes Mohammed was referring to the Judi mountains in Saudi Arabia. This is not certain. Mohammed was very familiar with Christian and Jewish traditions not to mention the fact that he probably traveled
BSP 5:3 (Summer 1992) p. 75
to this area during his days as a merchant. In the English translation of the Quran made by George Sale in 1734, a footnote concerning the landing place of the Ark states that the Quran is following an ancient tradition.31 At least the following Muslim sources seem to agree.
Al Masudi. 10th Century. “The ark came to rest on Jabal Judi. .. 8 P(F)arasangs from the Tigris. The place can still be seen.” Eight P(F)arasangs is approximately 25–30 miles. This puts one right on Cudi Dagh!
Ibn Haukal. 10th Century. He places Al-Judi near the town of Nesbin (modern Nusaybin) and mentions that Noah built a village at the foot of the mountain.
Ibn Al-mid. 13th Century. He informs us that an emperor (Heraclius) wished to climb Jabal-Judi to see the site in the 7th Century.
Zakariya ben Muhammad al Kazwine. A Muslim geographer of the 13th Century also reports that wood from the Ark was used to construct a monastery. He does not, however, give a location.
Jewish Source:
Benjamin of Tudela. 12th Century. He says he travelled “two days to Jezireh Ben Omar, an island in the Tigris on the foot of Mt. Ararat. .. on which the ark of Noah rested. ‘Omar Ben al-Khatab removed the Ark from the summit of the two mountains and made a mosque of it.” Note: the ruins of this city, Jezireh Ben Omar, are located at the foot of Cudi Dagh (see photo #4); and also, here is evidence that this mountain was also called “Mt. Ararat;” it does have two peaks; and remains were still there at this date.
Conclusion
The above evidence to us seems impressive. As we mentioned already it is not conclusive, but certainly compelling when compared to the evidence for Mt. Ararat. This, of course, does not include the eyewitness accounts for Mt. Ararat which, taken at face value, are spectacular. Only one verified eyewitness would invalidate all of the above! However, since we have no absolutely verifiable eyewitness, we wonder if any of the eyewitnesses in the lists given in various books about the search for Noah’s Ark could have possibly been at this southern location. We feel that some of them can, and at least one, seems to us to be certain.
Photo 4: Bridge on road to ruins of Jezirah Ben Omar.
Here are two examples:
First, we are not entirely convinced, but it is possible that the discovery of the Ark by Prince Nouri may have been at this southern site, and perhaps what he saw was the stone reconstruction somewhat covered with snow.32 We find it interesting that he was travelling from India to take over the leadership of the Nestorian
BSP 5:3 (Summer 1992) p. 76
church which just happened to have its centera little to the east of this mountain. Certainly he would have been acquainted with the Nestorian tradition which puts the Ark on Cudi Dagh! The Nestorians once had a famous monastery called “The Cloister of the Ark” upon the summit of this mountain. It was destroyed by lightning in AD 766 as mentioned earlier. Question: Why did he say he was on Mt. Ararat? Because to most Christians, if the Ark is there it had to be Mt. Ararat.
We believe a second and more certain possibility is the chance discovery of the five Turkish soldiers who were returning home after WW1 who were leaving from Baghdad to return to their homes in Adana when by chance they came upon Noah’s Ark.33 Now why would they deliberately go several hundred miles out of their way toward Ararat, climb a 17,000 ft. mountain which was still under the control of their enemies (the Russians) when their home was in the opposite direction? These questions need answers. When one looks at a map, they most likely followed the Tigris River right to their country’s border. This would have put them right on target to Cudi Dagh. They could not have gone a more direct route through Syria because of the British Army. This makes sense!
The above arguments and historical references may not constitute a conclusive argument for the Ark’s final berth, but they are compelling and, to us, overwhelming. More digging is necessary, perhaps even in the literal sense, on Cudi Dagh!
BSP 5:3 (Summer 1992) p. 77
For Ark Researchers who wish to do further critical study of the above mentioned ancient texts we recommend the scholarly work of Jack P. Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature (Netherlands, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968), and Lloyd R. Bailey, Noah (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989)
Readers wanting a sample of Ararat Report should write to: Ararat Report, 2050 N. Collins Blvd. #100, Richardson, TX 75080. .
Author in 9th c. BC Urartian cave at the foot of Mt. Ararat.