According to Josephus1, the Ark of Noah was visible in his day:

The Armenians call this place The Place of Descent; for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shown there by the inhabitants to this day.

Is this mentioned in other classical Jewish sources, such as in the Talmud or in the Midrashim?

1. Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, Chapter 3:5

  • 2
    People can claim whatever they want, but those "explorers" haven't revealed any factual evidence that they've found anything, let alone Noah's Ark. Besides, Mount Ararat in Turkey is not necessarily the same Ararat that the Ark landed on top of. The mountain was named Ararat after the mountain in the Flood account, but it's not necessarily the same one and many scholars conclude it isn't. Just a few of the problems I find with this "discovery".
    – ezra
    Jun 3, 2018 at 6:13

2 Answers 2


The Talmud (Sanhedrin 96a) says that Sennachrib found a beam of the Ark and used it as an idol:

[Sennachrib] then went away and found a plank of Noah's ark. 'This', said he, 'must be the great God who saved Noah from the flood.'

According to here, Haman used a beam of the Ark in the gallows to hang Mordechai. The source brought is Midrash Abba Gorion chapter 4, but there is no version online for me to link.


The remains of Noah's ark can be seen on "the mountains of Urartu", some 18 miles south of Mt. Ararat (Ataturk University confirmed the authenticity of the ark remains in 1986).

Needless to say that the discovery is portrayed as a hoax and all the evidence is explained away (we wouldn't expect differently, would we).

  • 2
    Since the academia doesn't support the Noachian Deluge, you will never find anything in so-called scientific geological journals (except for 'debunkings'). Besides, to the annoyance of professional archaeologists, the person who discovered the ark was a layman; some information can be found here: wyattmuseum.com/discovering/noahs-ark (I have visited the site, and IMO a preschooler would correctly identify the formation as the ark). Apr 29, 2020 at 14:20
  • 1
    Are the debunkings based on "it's not an ark" or "it's an ark but it can't be Noah's"?
    – DonielF
    Apr 29, 2020 at 15:41
  • 1
    They say it's "a common geologic structure." The ark refutes gradualism, macro-evolution and by inference heliocentrism – of course, the scientific community cannot just sit by and do nothing (they have to vaporise the evidence). Obviously, this is just my opinion. I have combined some images and notes at: researchgate.net/publication/… May 1, 2020 at 18:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .