Have we Misunderstood Genesis 8:4-5?

Genesis 8:4-5, in the Authorised Version, reads: 

"And the Ark rested in the seventh month, on the sevententh day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually: in the tenth MONTH on the first DAY of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen."

These verses are traditionally understood to be saying that when the Ark rested on the mountains of Ararat, it rested upon the very extreme top of them, and that only later did the tops of the mountains appear above the water. 

This is the obvious reading, given the general focus on water which pervades this part of the passage, and so it might seem gratuitous to even consider any alternative. 

How long is the period between Genesis 8:4 and Genesis 8:5?

However, Genesis 8:3 makes clear that at the end of 150 days the waters were ABATED i.e. had already fallen very significantly below the level they were at Genesis 7:20). The date given at Genesis 8:4 (17th day of the 7th month) is exactly 5 months after the start of the Flood (Genesis 7:11), and it therefore seems reasonable to conclude that the 150 days correspond to 5 months, each of 30 days. (This number of days in the month is used by some ancient calendars, and is not an unreasonable number, given that the number of days may have altered as a result of the Flood & post-Flood events). We can certainly assume that 150 days approximates to 5 months. 

We then note that the waters decreased continually until the first day of the 10th month, which is 3 months less 16 days later, which, reckoned at 30 days per month, implies some 73 days between the events described in verses 4 and 5. This is a very long time within the context of the Flood year: it is nearly twice as long as the period for which the rain fell, and is about 20% of the some 370 days of the Flood year as a whole. 

Is the traditional interpretation possible?

Is the traditional interpretation therefore realistic? Let us consider the possibilities: 

Suppose that Gen 8:4 describes the grounding of the Ark on the top of a mountain, but the mountain itself is not yet visible under the Ark. In that case why is the date at which the ground actually becomes visible not recorded? Or should we assume that Genesis 8:5 is the record of when the ground becomes visible - it is, after all, "the top of a mountain"? 

Alternatively, perhaps Genesis 8:5 records the date when OTHER mountain tops became visible. In which case, in so far that Genesis 8:5 records the emergence of mountains from the water, why should it of any significance to record this event, if the mountain on which the Ark rests has already been (perhaps considerably) exposed? This possibility can reasonably be dismissed on the grounds that it tells us nothing useful, given that it implies that scripture does not provide the far more significant information about the first appearance of exposed land. 

So returning to the other possibility within the traditional framework, that Genesis 8:5 is indeed speaking of the progressive uncovering of the mountain top on which the Ark rests, it seems a very odd way to express the fact that the Ark is now resting on exposed land. In addition, more than 70 days is a VERY LONG TIME for the water, which is stated to be falling continually in verse 5 - and therefore presumably noticeably so - to have been falling, yet only to have fallen enough to fully beach the Ark. Such a rate of fall would have been hardly noticeable. 

Moreover, any interpretation which grounds the Ark on the top of a mountain, but without leaving it properly high and dry, is open to other very serious objections. The moon (which is the means by which months are measured) was creating tides. The height of these tides varies locally, of course, depending on the local under-water topography, but it is invariably the case that where the water is shallowest the tidal range is the greatest. It therefore follows that if the Ark is grounded on the top of a mountain in the middle of an otherwise open sea, in the way traditionally understood, it must have been be buffetted by the maximum possible tidal effects, and have suffered breaking waves as on a sea-shore. Since more than 2 months pass, it must be the case that the Ark must have been lifted off at at least once during that period, given that there must have been at least 2 sets of spring tides. But such drifting about, with repeated groundings, each of which would, of course, seriously endanger the vessel, is not mentioned or hinted at given by the text. The traditional scenario must, surely, have given rise to circumstances at least as worrying as Paul's shipwreck! 

Clearly the traditional interpretation is therefore unsustainable, unless the Flood is extremely tranquil, there is no tidal effect, and the rate of recession of the waters is extremely low for over 70 days in the middle of the Flood year. This is not consistent with a global Flood. 

What is the alternative?

So what other interpretation is possible? Genesis 8:3 says that the waters were abated by the end of the 150 days. This suggests that the waters had already gone down a long way, the fountains of the great deep having been stopped and the rain having ceased after just 40 days. It seems therefore reasonable to conclude that the Ark beached, not on the TOP of a mountain but somewhere much lower down, perhaps even somewhere that was reasonably sheltered. From this perspective, it seems quite natural to believe that, at this stage the tops of the mountains were not visible, not because they were still underwater, but because the mountains were shrouded in mist or low cloud, like mountains so often are. Alternatively the visibility may have been generally bad, as a result of a general haziness or mistiness. Either is possible: we expect the atmosphere to have been carrying a great deal of water vapour at that time, and very probably other material that impaired the visibility. It is quite perfectly credible that more than 70 days passed before the mistiness (or worse) passed and the mountain tops became visible. The Ark was safely grounded, and the waters continued to recede away from it, throughout this period. 

Conclusion

The traditional interpretation of Genesis 8:4-5 is not consistent with the conditions which may be reasonably expected to have obtained during the Flood. An alternative scenario, in which the Ark grounded in relatively sheltered conditions, well below the mountain tops, is not only possible but reasonably probable. 

Richard H Johnston (April 1998)