Noah and the Anglo-Saxons

Yesterday we talked about the medieval attitude toward Noah, mostly from the Jewish viewpoint. Another group that spent a significant amount of time writing about Noah was the Anglo-Saxons in England.

Part of the reason was that King Alfred the Great (reigned 871 - 899) wanted important Latin works translated into English to be more accessible to more people. One of those works was a history by Orosius, the Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII, or "Seven Books of History Against the Pagans." Orosius starts with Noah's Flood and tells the story of history up to his own time (he died c.420CE).

His goal was to explain how Christianity improved the lives of humankind, and he gives details such as the dimensions of the Ark:

Adam lived for 930 years. Noah lived 600 years before the Flood and 350 winters after it and he was in the Ark for 40 days, he and his three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth and their three wives. The Ark was 300 fathoms long, 50 fathoms wide, and 30 fathoms high. And his son Shem lived 630 years and his son Arfaxad lived 438 years. Then he begat a son called Heber. From him sprung forth the ‘Hebrew’ people.

Arfaxad was one of the sons of Shem, but the Anglo-Saxons were interested in a different descendant from Noah:

The story of Noah and his sons, and the building of the Ark, seems to have been popular in Anglo-Saxon England. Many of the surviving genealogical lists of Anglo-Saxon kings, for example, feature Noah prominently. The West Saxon Regnal List tell us that the line of the kings of Wessex, the dominant kingdom of Anglo-Saxon England from the late 9th century onwards, was descended from the Old Testament patriarch, through his fourth son Sceaf, said to have been born on the Ark itself. [link]

A list of West Saxon kings declares that they descended from Noah through his fourth [sic] son, Sceaf. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for year 855 supports this, at least in two versions (B & C), saying Sceaf was born in the Ark.

Outside of Anglo-Saxon sources, the Noah-Sceaf link is unknown. A reference to him in Snorri Sturluson is explained because the Prose Edda drew on English sources.

Of course, in Beowulf we hear the story of Scyld Scefing, "Shield, son of Scef," who floats ashore as a babe on a ship laden with treasure and becomes king of Denmark. The "genealogy" of the ark-born Sceaf in Orosius and the ship-delivered Scyld Scefing of Beowulf would be a good dissertation topic for someone in my field of study.

We, however, will go in a different direction and look at Paul Orosius and his history.

Noah in the Middle Ages

There is much more to be said about the story of Noah than an ark, a dove, and animals two-by-two (especially since the command was to collect more animals than just pairs). Jewish thinkers of the Middle Ages looked more carefully at the story and asked themselves questions.

For example, we are told that Noah was "righteous in his generation." Did that mean that he was a good man in the context of that time but not necessarily by absolute standards? (Since the point of the Flood was to eliminate wicked humanity.) After all, he followed God's command to build an ark and collect animals, but could he have warned his neighbors to prepare for the coming Flood? Abraham prayed on behalf of Sodom and Gomorrah, but Noah doesn't even talk to God; we never hear his voice; he just follows orders. Noah was the first vintner, a useful thing, but he got drunk and exposed himself. Was he an example of the "righteous man in a fur coat," one who neglects his neighbor while ensuring his own comfort?

One medieval commentator, Rashi, claimed that the building of the ark took 120 years, and that Noah stretched it out to give people time to repent. Rashi also said that the name "Noah" itself supports this, because it means "This one will comfort us in our work and in the toil of our hands, which come from the ground that the Lord had cursed."

The Jewish Encyclopedia points out that there are two different stories of Noah. In one he is the "hero of the flood," in the other he is the savior of mankind who plants the first vineyard. These are two very different anecdotes, and could just as easily have been two different characters.

Adam is described as the first farmer, but farming did not die out with the Flood. It was not necessary for the creation of wine-making to happen post-Flood, so why attach the development to Noah? Was it solely to have his son Ham enter and see his father naked so that Ham could be cursed and explain other human beings in the world who were "cursed"?

Medieval Christianity saw Noah's three sons as the fathers of the peoples in different continents:  Japheth/Europe, Shem/Asia, and Ham/Africa. Ham's curse was intended to explain the dark skins of the African people, and was used as a justification for slavery. All of this was upended after the discovery of animals and people across the Atlantic after 1492, as you can imagine. Even Isaac Newton, writing in the 18th century, saw Noah and his sons as the ancestors of humanity across the world.

There was a medieval group that spent a lot of time on the builder of the ark; tomorrow we'll look at the Anglo-Saxon fascination with Noah.

Zoroastrianism

Over 600 years before the birth of Jesus, who went on at the age of 30 to challenge the status quo of his faith and developed a major religion based on his teachings after being recognized by a preacher on the banks of a river, a Persian reformer at the age of 30 had a revelation by the banks of a river and challenged the status quo of his faith, going on to preach and develop what became the major religion of his people.

Details about Zoroaster (real name Zarathushtra Spitama) have been debated and analyzed for centuries, but the sparse and vague facts don't matter as much as his influence on that part of the world. The story as it exists today is that he became a priest at 15, left his parents at 20 to wander and preach, and at 30 saw a shining figure on a river bank who revealed himself as Vohu Manah (Good Purpose) and taught him about Ahura Mazda (Wise Lord). Zoroaster learned the concepts of Asha and Druj, Order and Deception. He then devoted his life to teaching about Asha.

Eventually receiving the patronage of a queen, he continued to spread his ideas until he died at the age of 77. One story says he was killed by a priest of the traditional Iranian religion while Zoroaster was performing a ceremony. Another story says a Turanian soldier killed him. There is also the belief that he died of old age.

The teaching of Zoroastrianism are in the Gathas, an account of conversations between Zoroaster and Ahura Mazda. In them we learn that Ahura Mazda has an enemy, Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit). Human beings have a choice between Asha and Druj, these two opposing forces being promoted by Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. (There is of course much more to it than that.)

The illustration above is of the Faravahar, a prominent symbol of Zoroastrianism, whose interpretation varies, but seems to be a representation of a person's spirit.

Zoroastrianism did not reach Western Europe, but it did interact with other subjects of this blog. The 10th Abbasid caliph, al-Mutawwakil ala Allah, did not follow the religious tolerance of his predecessor. In Kashmar there was an enormous cypress tree, supposedly 1400 years old, sacred to Zoroastrianism because it came from a. branch brought by Zoroaster from Paradise. al-Mutawwakil had it cut down to provide beams for his new palace. Despite protests, the destruction was carried out in 861CE. Zoroastrians might think that a curse was placed on the act, since al-Mutawwakil was assassinated by a soldier the night that the wood arrived via river and never saw the wood he wanted so desperately.

The 6th century CE saw clashes between Zoroastrianism and the Nestorian Church that was pushing to the East because it was so thoroughly rejected by the West. The dualistic nature of Zoroastrianism—that Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu were equally powerful forces—clashed with the Christian view that God was omnipotent.

As Muslim caliphates conquered the lands where Zoroastrians practiced, there was slow pressure to convert, despite being given dhimmi ("protected") status as a minority.

A 17th-century Jesuit scholar named Athanasius Kircher reconciled Zoroastrianism with the Bible by identifying Zoroaster with Noah's son Ham. In the current era, Zoroastrians number fewer than 150,000, and are found among Indian Parsis and Iranian Zoroastrians.

This post got me thinking about Noah and Ham. Ham was used to explain and (sadly) to dehumanize dark-skinned people. But what did the Middle Ages make of the story of Noah? On the one hand he was the father of humanity, but first he oversaw its destruction. Was that a problem? Hmmm.