Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] More Cubits

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: <tladatsi AT charter.net>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] More Cubits
  • Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:39:28 -0400

There are two separate aspects of traditional measurement
systems that must be distinguish, their functional aspects
and their legal aspects.

Standardization of measures, particularly weights, is a
legal issue generally associated with taxation. It is in
the State?s interest that all units be standardized so that
taxes can be collected effectively. This is an issue for
more commercialized / mercantile societies where market
exchanges are mediated by money and a significant source of
taxes are sales taxes / tariffs / etc. It is also a legal
issue in the resolution of contractual exchanges of goods.
In less commercialized / more agricultural societies the
main source of State income is either cuvee labor and / or
a fixed share of agricultural produce. In these societies
there is less emphasis on standardization of measures.

This is entirely different from the functional aspects of
measures. This was more the focus of my comments. If an
arkwright is building a chest (ark), it does not matter a
bit that his cubit is of a different length than another
arkwright?s cubit.

I also gave examples of sailors fathoming a shoal etc. My
main point was that as a functional matter, traditional
units, as used in traditional societies without
standardized units of measures, are rather imprecise as
compared to how we think about them today but completely
useful given actual imprecision of their uses. If long
armed sailor measures the depth to a shoal he might say it
is a hand short of two fathoms while a sort armed sailor
might say it was exactly two fathoms. The keel of your
boat is about a foot below the waterline. Either way, you
are save distance from the shore.

The original question about Noah?s ark was, how long was
the 300 cubits in modern units. Given the fact that that
section of Genesis was written for a more agriculturally
oriented society and the construction of the box had no
taxation associated with it, there is no reason to assume
that either the author had a standardized length in mind or
that the audience had any similar thought. Further, since
the author was not actually planning on having anyone
actually build such a box (it had already been done after
all), the actual details were not really all that important
to either the listener or the author. This is of course
assuming that the author literally meant 300 cubits as
opposed to that number meaning some unimaginable great
length for a wooden box.


Jack Tladatsi




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page