Noah adaptations p05: Jewish Texts After the Hebrew Bible

This is part 5 of a series investigating adaptations of the "Noah" story.

"The Animals Entering Noah's Ark" (1570s) by Jacopo Bassano

In the last part of this series on adaptations of Noah, I looked at the variations of the flood story that were brought together to form Genesis. Now I want to turn to how Jewish writers continued to amend and adapt the flood narrative after Genesis had been written. While the number of Jewish sources that do something with the flood narrative are too numerous to track, I'm going to focus on the main ones here, written in the Second Temple (intertestamental) period, beyond into the era following the fall of Jerusalem in 70 

CE to the later part of the first millennium CE.

I've laid out the most relevant sources in a rough chronological order, though I should point out that dates are nearly always disputed, and vaguer than the dates I cite. I just find it useful to find an approximate middle of the range to help establish what is likely to have come before what. (DSS = Dead Sea Scrolls)

200 BCE - The Book of Enoch 
200 BCE - The Book of Jubilees

100 BCE - DSS - Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20/1QapGen)

50 BCE - DSS - Pesher/Commentary on Genesis (4Q252/4QPGen)

40 BCE - DSS - Flood Apocryphon/Admonition Based on the Flood (4Q370)

80 CE - Pseudo-Philo (Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum)

94 CE - Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews

400 CE - Bereshit of Rabbah (Genesis Rabbah)

500 CE - Sanhedrin 108b (Babylonian Talmud)

600 CE - Sibylline Oracles

750 CE - Tanchuma Noach (Tanhuma Noah or Tanakh Noah)

1000 CE - Sefer ha-Yashar (Tole dot Adam, Book of Jasher)

Enoch

The Jewish source that is most frequently mentioned in relation to Noah (2014) is the Book of Enoch, a composite work of five smaller books that was compiled sometime "between the late fourth century B.C.E. and the turn of the era".¹ I want to get into this in a bit more detail, so I'm going to return to it in part 6.   

Jubilees

The Book of Jubilees is a rewriting of the material found in book of Genesis and the start of Exodus from the second century B.C.E.². The Dead Sea Scrolls included sections from 15 different manuscripts, roughly the same number of copies as they had of Genesis itself, so it was certainly popular among the Essene community³. The relevant passage starts with the last verse of chapter 4 and runs through to the fifteenth verse of chapter 6.  Most of the story remains intact, though the references to the animals on the ark is reduced to an afterthought. There's no mention of them entering two by two, let along seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean.

This is unusual, because Jubilees tends to elaborate on the Genesis text quite a lot and many of those additions seem quite fastidious. In stark contrast to the absent details about the animals entering the ark, the list of the animals Noah sacrifices afterwards is very specific. Indeed, in general, the new material seems to be intended to reflect cultic practice. There's a great deal of concern about consuming blood, for example. That said, more general principles such as not killing other people (shedding blood) and about justice also come through quite strongly.

In my previous piece in this series I mentioned how the gods' attempt to depopulate the earth is turned on its head in Gen 9:1 and Jubilees 6:5 repeats the command to "increase and multiply yourselves on the earth and become numerous upon it", as well as the promise that "I will put fear of you and dread of you on everything that is on the earth and in the sea" [James VanderKam's 2018 translation]. It's funny, the "fear and dread" is in Genesis too, but I've never noted it before – a widening of the rift between humanity and its environment.

Lastly, one point relating to the Aronofsky adaptation in particular. In the film, Madison Davenport plays Ham's wife, who is called Na'el. As Peter Chattaway points out the name is a shortened form of Ne-el-atamauk, which derives from Jubilees 7:14).⁴

Dead Sea Scrolls 

Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20, IQapGen) has large parts missing, but is still arguably the most interesting account of Noah amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. It dates from somewhere between 3rd century BCE and 1st century CE and was one of the seven scrolls that were first discovered, though the last to be translated because of its poor state. What we have starts with the "miraculous" birth of Noah in col.II and runs on into the life of Abram in col.XXII.⁵ Much of the Noah story is fragmentary, but of what remains we begin with his father Lamech's concern about how the yet to be born Noah will turn out. He asks his father (Methuselah) who in turns asks his father Enoch, who is held to be properly in touch "with the holy ones" (col.II:20).⁶. Collins observes how the "Genesis Apocryphon (ca. first/second century BCE) shares a number of features with both 1 Enoch and Jubilees, including the role of the Watchers".⁷ 

Cols III to XI are reduced to just a few phrases, but there's enough of col.VII to be able to figure out that now it's Noah that is speaking, recounting the events in the past tense. This is the first time since the flood hero became Noah that he has had a voice (aside from to curse Ham/Canaan). The first sentence particularly stands as Noah is recalling God's promise that he will "rule the earth and all there is in it" which feels like an expansion of what has gone before.⁸ Col. XII is better preserved and contains a few details of his family and a bit more about his vineyard. Collins notes that this is where the idea of Noah hearing God through visions, rather than words, is first found (e.g. XII:1).⁹

Fragment 4Q370, dating from around 160 BCE to 60 BCE almost has more titles than extant words (see here). It's variously called "A Flood Apocryphon", "Admonition Associated with the Flood",¹⁰ or "Exhortation Based on the Flood"  (Martinez).¹¹ The only bit that really stands out is the specific mention that "the giants did not escape". This seems to be in contrast with other traditions, that seek to explain the existence of giants/Nephilim after the flood in the Bible (not only Goliath, but those mentioned in Numbers 13:33) with a story of Og king of Bashan riding on a unicorn to stay alive (Zevachim 113b in The Talmud). See here, here and here for more on that...

Genesis Pesher (4Q252) also called a "Commentary on Genesis A". "Pesher" is a fairly terse retelling of the story, adding almost nothing and abridging the material quite significantly though typically it's employing a more disciplined word count than excising elements of the story. The most obvious actual omission seems to be that of the animals with a single dove being the only mention of animals in the whole text. It also clarifies the timings and mentions the 364-day calendar (as does "Jubilees").¹² It dates from around mid-1st century BCE to late 1st century CE.

(Pseudo) Philo

As with the Book of Jubilees the word "polluted" also crops up in Pseudo-Philo, but in an entirely different context. Pseudo-Philo, more formally called the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, was "produced in Palestine in the first century AD... (covering)... the story of Israel from Adam to David".¹³ It generally abridges the biblical text, such that the inclusion of the flood story is notable in itself given the omission of most of the rest of Genesis. The Noah (or Noe) story is found in Chapter III flanked by genealogies of Noah's ancestors and descendents. 

The most significant addition to the text is an apocalyptic section that comes immediately after God's promise not to destroy the world again (III:9). Following a pivotal "but" God launches into a promise to punish sin by famine / the sword / fire / death / scattering through the nations / earthquakes and from there moves onto a prediction what will happen when "the times are fulfilled". These are similarly apocalyptic in tone (and here I use the term in both the colloquial and the technical sense), using phrases that will bring to mind the more apocalyptic parts of the New Testament (such as Revelation).

This use of "polluted" comes in III:10 in the middle of the various predictions of destruction and judgement. God adds in that despite "none shall be polluted that hath been justified in me" before going on to promise "another earth and another heaven". Again this is clearly being used in a very different sense to how we the word would typically be used today, albeit in a way that it might be used in certain circumstances.

What is particularly interesting though is how the insertion of this apocalyptic passage fits with Aronofsky's intentions. Like Pseudo-Philo he too is retelling the story of Noah while casting an eye on a more cataclysmic future. As Pseudo-Philo sought to warn his audience of the perils of living wrongly through the language and style of the apocalyptic genre, so too Aronofsky use the language and style of the disaster movie genre to encourage his audience to live in a more environmentally conscious manner.

It's also worth mentioning that while quite a lot of the story is truncated, James Wyke finds the removal of the story about Noah's drunkenness particularly significant.¹⁴ It's a much longer piece and I'm not sure he reads the Jewish apocalyptic genre correctly, but he finds Pseudo-Philo's airbrushing of "the one flaw in his character" contrasts with how early church fathers made excuses for his drunkenness.¹⁵ Essentially though, the effect is the same, sanitising Noah's reputation to present him in more saintly fashion.

Josephus

Josephus's retelling of the story in his "Antiquities" is interesting because in a sense it does what I have been attempting to do: set out the story in a broader historical context. Not only does it offer more dates and numbers than even Genesis itself, but there's a remarkable passage where Josephus stops to discuss how "the writers of barbarian histories" (93) also mention the flood. He agrees with them that the ark's final resting place was a mountain in Armenia.

Give the eco-critical nature of my current project, I'm really struck by Josephus' use of the word "polluted" even if he is using it differently from its typical use today (of course, it's his translators -- William Whiston in my case -- that landed on that word, but you get my point). Following Noah's post-flood sacrifice, Josephus has God say that it was he (God) "who brought the destruction on a polluted world, but that they underwent that vengeance on account of their own wickedness". 

What I find interesting about this is while Josephus/Whiston mean this in the sense of sin/evil it does echo something of Aronofsky's ideas about modern-day humanity destroying its world through chemical/CO₂ pollution. And we could add that in previous versions of this story it was noise pollution that was the issue.

The other thing that links to Aronofsky's film is in v75 which says God "determined to destroy the whole race of mankind, and to make another race that should be pure from wickedness" this is actually consistent with the thought process of Aronofsky's Noah who sees humankind's total destruction as God's plan. The difference is that in the film Noah is dissuaded from ending his race by his family, whereas in Josephus following the first flood Noah seems to talk God out of sending a flood of that magnitude ever again. 

This seems to cue up Josephus's take on humanity's power over the creatures. He extends things a little further than the Genesis account saying "I permit you to make use of all the other living creatures at your pleasure, and as your appetites lead you; for I have made you lords of them all". The sense that the rest of creation is their for humans to exploit seems to have expanded a bit.

Finally, one of Josephus' major elaborations of the text is a discussion about the length of years that Noah and those before him lived (104f). Here too he refers to writers from other nations who "agree" with him that "the ancients lived a thousand years". He also finds an astrological basis for their longevity, essentially that they had to live over 600 years to observe a full cycle of the stars.

Genesis Rabbah (Bereshit Rabbah?)

Bereshit Rabbah is a midrash/"running commentary" on Genesis from around 300 CE to 500 CE of which the Noah-related material runs to about about 100 pages in Freedman's 1961 translation into English.¹⁶ This is obviously an enormous amount of material (given the NRSV text of Gen 6:1-10:1 in English is only around 2270 words). As well as the numbers of Rabba's verses, I'll also cite Freedman's page numbers alongside them as a copy of his third addition is available via Internet Archive. Page numbers for other sources are below as normal).

Actually though the relevant parts of this source come from before the Noah story even really starts in 23:3 (p.194). The name Aronofsky's film gives to Noah's wife's name is Naameh, who here is identified as both the sister of Tubal-Cain and Noah's wife.¹⁷. Not all contributions from Bereshit Rabbah are so conventional. Lee notes how 28:8 (p.22) claims “the dog [copulated] with the wolf, the fowl with the peacock” and are also deemed guilty in contrast to the film's attempt to "exonerate the animals from guilt".¹⁸ 

However, there is quite a bit here that has a potential environmental spin on it. Neril and Dee note how "Noah actually planted the trees from which he would take the wood for the Ark" (30:7, p.235).¹⁹ Sustainable forestry is easier when you live to over 600 years old, I guess. 

Neril and Dee have two other interesting observations in this vein. Firstly, they make the point several times  that the designation of one of the three levels of the ark for animal excrement (31:11, p.245 "garbage" alternately translated in n5) embodies an eco-friendly approach. Not only does it show care for the animals (providing a "clean, healthy living space" p.21), it also pioneers "organic fertilizer" (p.20) or "compost" (p.26).²⁰ A good use for this compost would have been to help "revitalize the land" after the flood,²¹ when we're told in 36:3 (p.289) Noah planted "vine shoots for planting, and young shoots for fig trees and olive trees" that he had brought onto the ark. The rabbis speculated that he'd also used those shoots as part of providing a varied and appropriate diet for the animals (31:14, p.247). 

 

The other key instruction about the construction of the ark concerns its source of light which revolves around Gen 6:16. The rabbis elaborate onn of differing understandings of the word tzohar. (which is "linguistically distinct" from the word zohar).²² It's a hapax legomenon which modern English Christian bibles tend to translate as "roof", older Christian English bibles translate as "window" and some Jewish English translations choose "light" based on the similar word zohar (literally 'shine'/'radiant').²³ Back in  200CE or thereabouts Targum Yonatan translated it as "precious stone". Here the writers elborate. Noah "did not require the light of the sun by day or the light of the moon by night, but he had a polished gem which he hung up" (31:2, p.244).

Neril and Dee bring these three elements together to conclude that "The Ark was a 'green building,' with a window for natural lighting from the sun, a whole floor dedicated to a composting of animal waste, and wood from forests Noah planted according to the midrash" a "reference to organic fertilizer".²⁴

Given all this, it's perhaps not surprising that Genesis Rabbah stresses one key difference between the text of Genesis 1:28 and the similar words in Gen 9:1-2. Despite the other similarities the word "dominion" is now missing, 34:12 (p.278) it notes "dominion did not return", even if the author(s) see(s) it as returning later.

Seth Sanders (cited on p.15 in Collins) also claims this adaptation gives Noah his first line of dialogue. "Genesis Rabbah helped make the flood filmable by giving Noah his first lines of dialogue and bringing in Tubal-Cain (as Noah’s father-in-law)".²⁵ Strictly speaking, he's wrong of course. Noah speaks even in the text of Genesis itself where having remained silent for almost the entire story, he pipes up right at the end to curse his grandson. But that's not really his point. The additional dialogue and family relationships Bereshit Rabbah introduce dramatic elements to the biblical narrative.

Sanhedrin 108 (Babylonian Talmud)

The (Babylonian) Talmud consists of six sedarim, which comprise of a total of 60 (or 63) tractates. Sanhedrin is one of these tractates. While Sanhedrin subdivides into 11 chapters, it's more common to reference the relevant folio directly, so we're looking at the 108th folio. These are still quite large Sanhedrin 108 consists of about 3000 words, though is usually divided into two parts "a" and "b". Dating is sometime between late 5th to "the formal closure of the Talmud, in about 600CE".²⁶ 

108a is mainly taken with describing the "generation of the flood" in very negative terms as you might imagine. It's hard not to think of some of Tubal-Cain's speeches in the 2014 film, when one reads words such as these

Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways. What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? And what profit should we have, if we pray unto him? They said thus: Do we need Him for aught but the drop of rain? We have rivers and wells to supply our wants.

So Noah responds, the first time (at least in the Jewish tradition) he has done this. "Noah rebuked them, urging, 'Repent!'" and goes into more detail. Nowadays the "traditional" Jewish view is that Noah was not righteous, because "righteousness is all about what you do for your fellow man. And Noah does NOTHING for his fellow man."²⁷(Emphasis original)

 

The other part of 108a to stand out was a discussion between the rabbis as to whether saying Noah was "perfect in his generations", meant he would be relatively even more perfect in other generations, or less perfect. One compares him to wine in acid, the other to the scent of "spikenard oil" lying in refuse compared to lying among spices.

108b continues this evocative imagery continues in when Noah's neighbours laugh off his prediction claiming that whether the flood is of water or fire they can survive. The rabbis respond that the "waters of the flood were as severe as semen" (though R. Hisda then uses a more literal "hot water"). I'm fascinated as to what the main points of comparison were when they used this simile and quite what they thought they were doing using it. 

There's another sex-related passage later on: "Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished — the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates [his seed into his mate's mouth] and Ham was smitten in his skin" I've touched on Ham's 'punishment' already, but the other two touch on elements that are expanded elsewhere in the text. This passage seems to be used as a conclusion to a previous story about the raven complaining that he was sent out to hunt for land when he and his mate were the only ones of their species (in contrast to the kosher birds). Hence why next time Noah sends out the dove which Neril and Dee interpret as an act of "preserving the diversity of life on earth".²⁸

That's not an explicit motivation the text makes, but elsewhere, in similar fashion, it does suggest "an intimate knowledge of and desire to learn from animals" with a lengthy story about Noah's discovery of what to feed the chameleon which also expresses the attention they gave to all the animals about how and when to feed them.²⁹ There's something particularly touching about this story and the connected one about the phoenix. 

Sibylline Oracles

The Sibylline Oracles sit awkwardly on this list, a strange mix of prophetic utterances that reflect a hotpotch of religious and cultural backgrounds: Jewish, Christian, pagan, Hellenistic, Gnostic. The majority of the flood material lies in Book I, lines 149-343, which seems to be Christian in origin.³⁰ While the Sibylline Oracles were composed over centuries, we're looking at a final dating of around the 6th or 7th century CE. Interestingly, both Book I (lines 350-54) and Book III (lines 1023-28) claims to have been written by Noah's daughter-in-law, despite them seeming to have different origins.

Book I is considered Christian in origin and certainly the way that almost a third of the total number of lines, 186-243, are given over to Noah's preaching to the people to repent, seems very different from anything we've seen so far in the Jewish takes on this story, though Josephus (1.74) does mention this briefly. We do find this idea of a preaching Noah in the New Testament though, in 2 Peter 2:5 which calls Noah "a herald of righteousness". He is also rebuked by the people who are recorded "(c)alling him mad, a frenzy-smitten man" (line 214).

Strangely, though, aside from its apocalyptic tone there's not that much of note, aside from perhaps the implication, and it is a little ambiguous, that God both shuts the door and bolts them in. So the Sibylline version of the story is perhaps best summed up by Seth Sanders "The Sibylline Noah anticipates his own misery at human suffering, tempered by awe at the flood’s sheer apocalyptic wonder".³¹

Tanchuma Noach (aka Tanhuma Noah or Tanakh Noah)

Tanchuma Noach is part of Midrash Tanchuma (or Yelammedenu), a midrash on the first five books of the Hebrew Bible with its original version dating from sometime around 500-800 CE. Noach is the second of 54 sections and it consists of 19 simans. Each consists of the rabbis expanding on the biblical text like the sources above.

A few things stand out here as the tradition progresses. Siman 5 says, for example, that not only was Noah righteous, but that "(e)ven Noah's sons, the animals, the beasts, the birds and the creeping things that accompanied him onto the ark were righteous". Moreover, it considers Noah so righteous that he was born circumcised. This is an interesting development from some of the rabbis from Sanhedrin 108b who consider  his righteousness to be only relative to his time. That discussion crops up again here only with a bit of a twist, the fragrant substance is now "Balsam oil" being placed  in a "filthy area" as opposed to a "clean"/"attractive" area. Again this seems to resonate with modern ideas about pollution, albeit as a metaphor.

Again we have Noah being mocked for telling the people God has ordered him to build an ark, but here things go further in Siman 7. The giants, eventually realise their fate, and try and storm the ark only for God to send lions to protect them and prevent these "mighty" men forcing their way on board the ark. This links to the watchers protecting the ark from Tubal-Cain's people in the film as well as giving some acknowledgement to "those about whom the biblical text is silent".³² Lions appear later as well in Siman 9 where a lion bites Noah so severely that "he left the ark crippled".

Elsewhere in we hear that Noah and his family didn't sleep because of feeding duties (Siman 9), so Lilly suggests "(t)his tradition of sleep-deprivation offers a rich opportunity to explore Noah as a character on the edge of sanity".³³

The other thing that stood out for me was the story in Siman 13 about Satan making a deal with Noah while he was planting his vineyard and then slaughters four animals there to make a point about the stages of alcohol consumption: people go from being as innocent as a lamb, to feeling as strong as a lion, then behaving like a pig before finally adopting the foolishness of an ape. "All this happened to the righteous Noah".

Sefer ha-Yashar (Tole dot Adam, Book of Jasher)

The first thing to explain with any title linked to "The Book of Jasher" is explain what it is not. This is not the Book of Jasher referred to frequently in the Hebrew Bible, which seemingly forms part of its source material, nor is it the 18th century forgery claiming to be the same. To make things even more confusing there's also another Jewish text from the middle ages called Sefer ha-Yashar/The Book of Jasher which is an ethical text. 

The one I'm looking at here is a medieval midrash, which can be read here (despite the initial pages of the scan it covers Genesis as well). The Hebrew title Sefer ha-Yashar, translates as "The Book of Righteousness". I've given a date of 1000CE above but that is probably the earliest feasible date. The latest date is 1625 when the earliest remaining copy was printed. Whereas the last few sources above have been styled around discussions between rabbis, this returns to a more "scriptural" format such that those not overly familiar with Genesis would find it difficult to distinguish between the two. It also feels like it branched off from those previous accounts at a much earlier stage, it doesn't seem to be building on those discussions. 

 
There are a few discrepancies about some of the details of Noah's descendants and different timings in places, and his wife's name is again given as Naameh (5:15). Narratively there's a quirky story about a lioness, and of animals having to humble themselves to be permitted entry, with unsuccessful ones remaining by the ark for seven days before the rain began (6:1-10). The flood itself is preceded by an earthquake and various other bits of apocalyptic imagery which actually feel similar in tone to Michael Curtiz's Noah's Ark (1929).

The bit that feels most like Aronofsky's film, and perhaps least like Genesis is 6:17-25 where 700,000 people gather round the ark having realised their error and repenting, but Noah does not relent. As part of his rebuke to them he mentions that he had spoken of this 120 years ago and they had ignored him. Infuriated the people try and 'storm' the ark but this time all the animals (not just the lions as in Tanchuma Noach) prevent them from doing so.

Those inside the ark are also frightened and anxious (6:28-33) with cries of the apex predators being detailed. Once the rain stops and the waters subside there's no sending of birds (God instructs them when to leave) and no mention of Noah planting vineyards or getting drunk. We do get an additional interesting detail about the skin garments that God had given Adam and Eve being passed down the family line to Noah who brings them on board the ark (7:24-30). Echoes here of Aronofsky's snakeskin. Moreover, Ham then steals them, passes them to Cush who clothes Nimrod in them which means God gives him strength.

Later sources

When I started writing this blog post several weeks ago now, I had hoped to follow it up with one about later Jewish mystic texts, such as those of Kabbalah e.g. Zohar, but my deadline is sooner than I had remembered and the chapter itself is only meant to be 5000 words and this blog post alone is already longer than that, so I need to focus. Perhaps I'll return at a later stage. I'm still planning to do something on Enoch, but even that might be a push now. We'll see. I say we, but I must admit I have my doubts that after 5000 words about obscure texts on a now out of the way weblog I'm not sure anyone is still reading at this point. So let me know if you made it this far!

===========

1. Nickelsburg, George W.E. and James C. Vanderkam (2012) 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). Ebook loc.47.

2. Vanderkam, James C. (2020) Jubilees: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). Ebook loc.110.

3. Kugel, James (2014) The Book Of Jubilees, The Oldest Commentary On Genesis. Audio recording. Available online: https://archive.org/details/TheBookOfJubileesTheOldestCommentaryOnGenesis

4. Chattaway, Peter (2012), "A Few New Details about Aronofsky's Noah", FilmChat Aug. 9. Available online: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2012/08/a-few-new-details-about-darren-aronofskys-noah.html 

5. Vermes, Geza (1976) The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Penguin). 2nd edition. p.215.

6. Martinez, Florentino García (1994) Dead Sea Scrolls: The Qumran Texts in English (Leiden/New York / Cologne: E.J.Brill). p.231. (which you can read here)

7. Collins, Matthew A. (2017) "An Ongoing Tradition: Aronofsky's Noah as 21st-Century Rewritten Scripture" in Rhonda Burnette-Bletsch and Jon Morgan (eds) Noah as Antihero (Abingdon/New York: Routledge). p.15.

8. Martinez, p.231

9. Collins p.17

10. Vermes, Geza (1998) The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Penguin) 4th Edition. p.518.

11. Martinez, p.224-5.

12. Collins p.15

13. Russell, D.S. (1987) The Old Testament and Pseudepigrapha: Patrirachs and Prophets in Early Judaism (London:SCM Press), p.97.
14. Wykes, James (2012) The Contextualized Noah: The Deluge Patriarch in Genesis, Jubilees, and Pseudo-Philo Master's. Unpublished thesis (University of Dayton). pp.55-74. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/3631710/The_Contextualized_Noah_The_Deluge_Patriarch_in_Genesis_Jubilees_and_Pseudo_Philo

15. Wykes, quote from p.74. Observation about Church Fathers from n232, p.66.

16. Freedman, H. and M. Simon (1961) Midrash Rabbah (London:Soncino Fine Arts Society). 3rd edition. p.XXVII.

17. Lee, Lydia "The Flood Narratives in Gen 6-9 and Darren Aronofsky’s Film Noah" in Old Testament Essays 29/2 (2016): 297-317. p.303 n24.

18. Lee p.302, esp. n17

19. Neril, Yonatan and Lee Dee (2020) Eco Bible: Volume 1: An Ecological Commentar on Genesis and Exodus (Interfaith Center for Sustainable Development). p.21.

20. Neril pages as cited

21. Neril p.26

22. Dennis, Geoffrey (2014) "Tzohar: Gem of Noah, Light of Heaven" at Jewish Myth, Magic and Mysticism (blog). 2nd April 2014 - Available online: https://ejmmm2007.blogspot.com/2008/10/tzohar-miraculous-light-of-noah-window.html

23. Dennis

24. Neril (p.20 (+21 & n118))

25. Sanders, Seth (2014) "Noah: The Movie" for Religion in the News (Hartford CT: Trinity College). November 18. Available online: https://commons.trincoll.edu/religioninthenews/2014/11/18/92/

26. Neusner, Jacob (1995) "Foreword" in Cohen, Abraham Everyman's Talmud (New York: Shockhen Books). First published 1949. p.x-xi.

27. Shmuley Boteach cited in Chattaway, Peter (2014) "The Jewish roots of — and responses to — Noah" Patheos: FilmChat 31 Mar 2014.
Available online: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2014/03/the-jewish-roots-of-and-responses-to-noah.html

28. Neril p.24 

29. Lilly, Ingrid E. “Rock Giants and the Magic Stone of Torah.” in Rhonda Burnette-Bletsch and Jon Morgan (eds) Noah as Antihero (Abingdon/New York: Routledge). p.40

30. Collins mentions the Sibylline Oracles in the same sentence as "Cave of Treasures" (p.15), but that is a more exclusively Christian text so I've not included it here.

31. Sanders

32. Collins p.17

33. Lilly p.40. She also cites Genesis Rabbah 30:6 as saying this, but really it only says that Noah fed "the whole twelve months in the Ark". This was probably the root for the rabbis elaboration here, but it's from them not Genesis Rabbah.

In the Beginning: The Story of Noah (1986)

Back in 2020 I wrote an initial post about a Japanese anime series Kyuuyaku Seisho Monogatari (In the Beginning) initiated by the renown director Tezuka Osamu. I meant to write up a few entries of the series, particularly the ones that almost included Nehemiah, but apparently never got around to it. However, now I'm doing a deep dive on adaptations of Noah, I thought now would be a good time to revisit that entry at. least, and maybe start the ball rolling with the others.

As it happens, The Story of Noah, is not a bad place to start, because it was the pilot and was finished around 1986, six years before the project came to completion. Although Tezuka continued to work on other episodes of In the Beginning, he died in 1989 and the series was completed without him. So, not only was The Story of Noah the pilot, it was possibly also the standard to which the others would be compared. 

In terms of tone, these are in the same ball park as many Bible-related animated adaptations. It's generally trying to offer a dramatised standard take on the text. Some bits are simplified (the animals only go in pairs, not fourteens for clean animals), more adult content is left out (the story doesn't get to Genesis 9 where Noah gets drunk and naked) and it adds in extra material to make the story work as drama.

For example, in Genesis Noah doesn't speak until after the aforementioned drunkenness, here the filmmakers give him and his family some dialogue in earlier scenes. We also see Noah being mocked and encountering opposition which is also not in the biblical account (or elsewhere as far as I recall). These things attempt to make the ancient text into a modern drama.

As this is a series, there's some harmonisation to make all the episodes feel similar. The most obvious example of this is a mischievous cartoon fox who appears in each episode, but perhaps a bigger issue is that such an approach essentially takes a range of texts written in quite different genres and standardises their tone. This reinforces the impression of univocality rather than the diversity of the biblical texts.

Overall (based on these episodes) the series seems is probably going for presenting a version of the texts most would be happy with and then trying to present it in such a way as to make it accessible for kids (without alienating adults). Given that, it's surprising that the episode starts by giving rather more attention to humanity's "wickedness" than most such child-orientated adaptations. The episode starts briefly touching on the Gen 6:1-4 about the sons of God having children by human women. There's also a brief shot of a naked woman's chest, which I don't think I've seen in any other Noah film.

There are some other visual innovations.  When Noah hears God tell him to build an ark he also sees a vision where it's sketched out in a white line drawing in the sky. The idea of Moses seeing a vision is one that emerges in later Jewish texts. When Noah tells his family what's happened there's some scepticism, especially from Ham. As the episode progresses Ham is consistently the one who is most likely to question, challenge or disagree with what Noah is doing. While the episode where Ham tells his brothers about their father's nakedness is not included, nor Noah's resulting curse upon Ham's son Cush, this seems to be at least a nod to it. Ham is perhaps the off-white sheep of the family.

The biblical text, doesn't actually say how long it took to build the ark, with some suggesting it took more than 100 years, or that Noah had time to first grow the trees he would use to build it. Here, it takes 7 days a number that's agrees with the Mesopotamian pre-cursors to the biblical flood story. This gives Noah's neighbours plenty of time to mock Noah, his wife and her sons (this is an idea that is developed more in the New Testament and the Qu'ran) and this forms quite an extended sequence. Some of Noah's neighbours also discuss sabotaging the ark, an idea found in texts such as Tanchuma Noach.

Like many child-orientated Noah products in popular culture (as well as animated shorts, I'm thinking of the popular ark playsets) there are attempts to lighten the mood. For example, there is a big focus on the animals arriving and the family's wonder at all these strange beasts. There are also some moments of humour here, skunks, Ham asking the scorpions not to bite him, octopodes riding on the back of a turtle etc.

When the flood finally comes we see both rain falling from the sky and water coming from the deep. This is part of the text that modern readers often overlook but seems to derive from the ancient worldview from which these texts emerged, and the idea that something fundamental changed the geology and physical processes by which the earth runs.

The flood scene doesn't shy away from the fact that people are losing their lives, including a Danby-esque scene of survivors clinging to a rock. Shem and his wife even lament the death of the people they knew. It also looks like the cross-series fox is without a partner and he is rejected by the other animals as he tries to find the female fox. Noah's sons are also unhappy about the lone-fox surviving. As are the rabbits who it tracks down, planning to eat them. I'll avoid spoiling how these various fox related story lines resolve themselves, as it's the only part of the story which is not from the text of Genesis.

It's not only the fox who ends up hungry. By the time the rain stops and the boat lands, the family has gone without food for several days and the animals are looking similarly peckish. This isn't an angle I've seen explored before. Shem and his wife discuss the possibility of farming the animals once things are back to normal, but we're not told about Noah going on to plant a vineyard or of his agricultural innovations. The family's story ends with Noah's sacrifice, God's promises and the rainbow.

Overall this is definitely one of the better animated takes on the story, perhaps not surprising given Tezuka's reputation. I'm not sure if/when I'll get round to writing about the rest of the series, but if/when I do I hope those entries completed after Tezuka's death continue in the manner of this pilot entry.