Masonic References to Noah

MASONIC REFERENCES TO NOAH AS THE MASTER BUILDER

1

R∴E∴ Harvey A. Eysman Thomas Smith Webb Research Chapter

As a member of Half Moon Lodge, No. 1, 2 Royal Ark Mariners, and Adoniram Council,

No. 43, A.M.D., both of which are invitational organizations for which the Companions must be

Royal Arch Masons, it is singularly curious to observe the use of "Commander Noah" as the title

of the presiding officer of the Ark Lodges. It is, therefore, with some interest that we may

contemplate the conspicuous occurrence throughout early Masonic literature of references to

Noah and his sons.

The appearance of the name “Noah” in our literature is neither recent nor contrived. It

has its foundation in no less authentic a reference than the Manuscript Constitutions of the Craft,

and the origins of this concept may be as old as the so-called “Hiramic” Legend itself.

It is with little doubt that the incursion of Noah into Masonic lore was the precursor of

the basic Masonic Legend1, in which Hiram appears. The concept of a death ritual, indeed, is

quite ancient, and has roots that extend to early mythic practices, not necessarily connected with

Masonry2, predating our Craft by millennia. The earliest allusions to a Legend, in terms that we

recognized as Hiramic, can be traced to about 1696, but ritualistic proof is not available until

17203. Certainly, the seeds of this legendary concept must have been sown considerably earlier

than either of these dates4.

The first references to Noah are oblique, and are usually associated with the Antediluvian

world or the risings of tides. As early as 1700, references to the “flood-mark” are to be found in

such fragments as the Chetwode Crawley MS5, and later in its twin, the Kevan MS (c. 1714), in

which an allusion to a penalty linked to a “flood-marke” is detailed6. Later versions, such as the

Wilkinson MS (c. 1727), make direct reference to the “tide” and its twenty-four hour cycle, an

image that is current today in Masonic ritual7.


2

Early connections with Noah were sometimes made without reference to any legend, but

rather in an historical sense as to ascribe a commencement to the builders' science8. But both the

Graham MS (c. 1726) and The Perjur'd Free Mason Detected (c. 1730) make direct reference to

Noah, his sons, and demonstrate a significance that can not be disputed in the structure of our

Masonic Craft.

The Perjur'd Free Mason Detected was an anonymously written pamphlet, published in

London in 1730. It contained 32 pages, and purports to defend the Craft from the attack of

Prichard's Masonry Dissected9. Our interest in the document, as it relates to Noah, is the portion

about Ham, the second son of Noah, “having a Genius to Architecture (sic)”, and the allusion to

the Great Flood10. The citation further projects that Ham communicated the knowledge of the

Art necessary to erect the Tower to Heaven, and there is, course, the conclusion that only a great

Master of the Science of Masonry could have taken up so immense a project.

The Graham MS, deals directly with the question of Noah. This is, indeed, the first full

expostulation of a death Legend incorporating Noah and his sons. The 1726 document details an

explicit course of events, with the inclusion of the “f-p-o-f” and a “word”, but the story, although

obvious “Hiramic”, contains not a syllable about Solomon nor Hiram. The text lays claims to a

tradition in Masonry that Shem, Ham and Japheth, in an attempted to secure the valuable secrets

entrusted to Noah, sought out his grave. They agreed that if they found nothing of the original

secrets, then the first thing they did find was to be to them a secret, an arrangement certainly not

unfamiliar to Masons today. The body was found, and the usual attempts were made to raise it,

and the usual reasons for the failure obtain; finally, the body is “raised” by the usual method

(cited below with all spelling and punctuation as in the original), by setting

ffoot to ffoot knee to knee Breast to breast Cheeck to cheeck and hand to back and cryed out help o ffather as if they had said o father of heaven help us now for our Earthly ffather cannot so Laid down the dead body again and not knowing what to do - so one said here is yet marrow in this bone (emphasis supplied) and the second said but


3

a dry bone and the third said it stinketh so they agreed for to give it a name as is known to free masonry to this day. . .11

We do not know the accuracy with which this “tradition” is recited; in fact, it may be a

gross obfuscation of the actual story as told at that time. (We recognize that there was a

proscription against revealing these “secrets”, but we do not know how morally committed the

author of the tract may have been). The resurrection theme, which introduced many early cult as

well as Christian references, can perhaps be traced to citations in Matthew 24:27, Luke 17:26

and Peter 3:21-2; and Masonic scholars have also alluded to this message as being envisioned in

the Dumfries MS12.

Prichard's Masonry Dissected (1730) bears a close resemblance in substance to the

previously cited portion of the Graham MS. As Carr points out13, “The major difference

between the two versions” of the Legend is that Graham refers to Noah and Prichard to Hiram,

which in and of itself may have been an obfuscation.

The legendary histories of the Craft produced many variations, beginning frequently with

Geometry and, as in the Second Degree lecture, developing the concept of Masonry from that

common point14. These histories cascade down from Adam and ultimately arrive at Noah and

the flood. The recitations credit the passing of all knowledge through Noah's sons, claiming

Ham to be the father of Nimrod, who built the Tower of Babylon (sometimes erroneously

construed to be the Tower of Babel)15.

The story of Noah (or Nuach), of the Flood and of the two pillars upon which the entire

knowledge of Man is to be found, appears in a majority of the old Manuscript Constitutions.

Even the term "Noachida," alluding to Noah, is a frequent reference in eighteenth century

Masonic literature to the name for Freemasons16.

It is also of interest to note that the cedar tree, which appears in Masonry, being one of

the woods sent to Solomon by King Hiram, bears a connection with Noah in Masonry. In


4

various Masonic Degrees, notably the 22nd of the Ancient and Accepted Rite, cedar is stated to

be that from which Noah's Ark was constructed, a proposition, however, not supported by the

Bible17.

Not to be excluded in this analysis is, of course, Anderson's Constitutions. Noah is

prominently alluded to in both the 1723 version, as well as in the 1738 document, in which it is

stated “And so from these Masons, or four Grand Officers, the whole present Race of Mankind

are descended”18. This, of course, is not totally unexpected, as it is believed that Anderson

drafted the historical portions of his Constitutions from the extant history available to the Craft;

and he certainly would have maintained in the documents the thread of traditional Masonic

thought prevailing during the early eighteenth century.

The origins of our Masonic Legends are cloaked in mystery and, in some cases, in

obscurity. Did our Masonic ancestors create these legends from the only history they knew? Or

were their compositions merely cloaks to obscure the secrets, from time immemorial, that were

passed to them from mouth to ear? We can not know, from the evidence we have, whether the

fragments that comprise the Manuscript Constitutions reflect an accurate delineation of our

Craft's early legendary secrets and beliefs; we know that ritual has been accurately traced from

document to document, but to reveal the secrets contained in the legends might have been to

subject oneself to condemnation. How far our forebears went to obfuscate the correct versions of

these legends is yet to be discovered. In any event, the place of Noah in Masonic lore is well and

truly established.


5

NOTES 1. Carr, Harry; "An Introduction to Prichard's Masonry Dissected;" 1981; QC Trans., Vol 94, p 119. 2. Eysman, Harvey A.; "The Masonic Legend as a Primary Epic;" 1988; Trans. American Lodge of Research, 1989. 3. Carr, Harry; ibid.; p 121. 4. Ibid. 5. Knoop, D., Jones, G.P., Hamer, D.; The Early Masonic Catechisms, (London, Quattuor Coronati Lodge, 1975); "The Chetwode Crawley MS.," p 35. 6. Knoop, D., Jones, G.P., Hamer, D.; ibid; The Kevan MS., p 41. 7. Knoop, D., Jones, G.P., Hamer, D.; ibid; The Wilkinson MS., p 126. 8. The Dumfries No. 4 MS.; also see Knoop, D., Jones, G.P., Hamer, D.; ibid; The Dumfries No. 4 MS., p 53. 9. Prichard, Samuel; Masonry Dissected; also see Knoop, D., Jones, G.P., Hamer, D.; ibid. 10. Anonymous, The Perjur'd Free Mason Detected, (London, 1730); also see Knoop, D., Jones, G.P., Hamer, D.; ibid., p 187-88 11. Knoop, D., Jones, G.P., Hamer, D.; ibid; Graham MS., p 92, et seq. 12. Dyer, Colin; "Some Thoughts on the Origins of Speculative Masonry," 1982; QC Trans., Vol 95, p 158, addendum note by H. Mendoza. 13. Carr, Harry; "An Introduction to Prichard's Masonry Dissected;" 1981; QC Trans., Vol 94, p 118, et seq. 14. Clarke, J.R.; "The Old Charges," 1982; QC Trans., Vol 95, p 82; also see The Cooke MS.," c.1410. 15. Ibid. 16. Carr, Harry; "Hebraic Aspects of the Ritual," 1984; QC Trans. Vol 97, p 77. 17. Jackson, A.C.F.; "The Flora in the Ritual of the English Constitution," 1981; QC Trans. Vol 94, p 205. 18. Anderson's_ Constitutions, (see Facsimile Edition, 1976, Oxfordshire, Burgess & Son) 1723, pg 3, et seq.; 1738, pg 4.

Documents

Masonic References to Noah