Noah's eyes

Blue irises and white sclerae

This is from Mauricio Berger's Sealed Book of Mormon (Sealed Moses 4:3). Little things like this have a way of capturing my imagination.

And Lamech lived a hundred and eighty-two years, and begat a son, and named him Noah . . . and when he saw the newborn child, he perceived that his eyes were different, and he was afraid that Noah would be the son of a watcher, but the Spirit of the Lord rested on Lamech, comforting his heart by making him know that he was not a descendant of the watchers, but it was the beginning of a new human progeny.

In context, watcher refers to angels that were mating with human women, as recounted in the Book of Enoch and alluded to in Genesis 6. Noah's eyes were sufficiently "different" that his father, Lamech, feared he might not be fully human -- but of course all humans alive today are supposed to be the descendants of Noah, so "Noachian" eyes -- eyes of a type like those of the watchers, but unknown among antediluvian humans -- must be commonplace, perhaps even universal, among modern humans.

My first thought was that Noah must have had white sclerae. This trait is now so universal among humans that the sclera is commonly called the "white of the eye" -- but our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, have black sclerae (darker than the iris), and so our distant ancestors may well have had all-dark eyes as well. Interestingly, bonobos have sclerae which, while not as white as our own, are lighter than the iris. Among gorillas and orangutans, sclera color varies from individual to individual, much like iris color in some human populations, and may be either lighter or darker than the iris.

Another obvious possibility is that Noah had "blue eyes" -- meaning blue irises. When we think of "eye color," we think of the iris, taking it for granted that the sclera is always white. Among monkeys and apes generally, though, it is sclera color that is variable, while irises are almost universally brown. I am open to correction by any primatologists among my readers, but I believe it is correct to say that (excluding albinos from consideration) no other monkey or ape has blue eyes; certain lemurs are our closest blue-eyed relatives, and blue eyes in lemurs are genetically different from those in humans and apparently evolved independently. It seems quite likely, then, that early humans were all brown-eyed, and that blue eyes appeared later.

If we are all descended from blue-eyed Noah, though, why do so few of us (8 to 10%) have blue eyes? Well, Noah was apparently a mutant, so we can assume that neither his wife nor any of his three daughters-in-law had any blue-eye genes. Since blue eyes are recessive, all of his children and grandchildren would have been brown-eyed. His great-grandchildren (assuming they were the product of cousin-marriages among his grandchildren) would have been 6.25% blue-eyed -- reasonably close to the modern percentage.

Thus far I have been trying to guess the nature of "Noachian" eyes by thinking of ways (some) human eyes differ from those of our nearest relatives, but we are also told that Noah's eyes were like those of a watcher. Are there any hints in old books as to what the watchers' eyes looked like? Nothing in the Bible or Book of Enoch comes to mind, but aren't the Greek gods -- heavenly beings that came down, mated with human women, and begat the "mighty men which are of old" -- likely the same beings as the watchers? And we know from Homer that Athena, at least, had distinctive eyes. Her stock epithet is γλαυκῶπις -- which could be calling her eyes either "bright, gleaming" or "blue-green, blue-gray." I do not believe Homer gives any of his human characters eyes of this sort. Athena's epithet leads us back to the two possibilities I have already discussed: Athena's eyes may have been blue or gray, or they may have been unusually "bright" because her sclerae were white rather than black.

⁂

Why bother writing a post like this, about what Noah's eyes might have been like if a certain obviously bogus book were actually true? Because -- and I am quite confident in saying this -- if I don't, no one else will!

Notice: A new FAKE Mormon prophet in Brazil

Recently I was thinking about the handful of prophets I regard as epoch-making -- Moses, David, Jesus, Joseph Smith -- and I fell to wondering who the next one would be. A comment I had read on the Junior Ganymede blog kept coming back to me: "Does the restoration need restoring?" ("Restoration" referring to the work of Joseph Smith.)

Someone sent me a link to an article arguing that the Resurrection had occurred on April 5, 33. I didn't click the link or read the article; instead, my immediate reaction was, "John Pratt made a strong case for April 6." (John Pratt is a Mormon who has written extensively about astronomy and chronology. I read a lot of his work in the past, but it's been many years.) I recall Pratt arguing that Jesus was born on April 6, not that the Resurrection occurred on that date, but nevertheless I felt an urgent need to visit his website.

It turns out that John Pratt is now a believer in Mauricio Berger, a Brazilian man who claims to have been visited by the angel Moroni, to have the Golden Plates, and to have unsealed and translated part of the sealed portion of those plates, published as the Sealed Book of Mormon (PDF). Mr. Pratt, an honest and highly intelligent man, considers the book to be genuine based on its content. He has also (with other witnesses) seen, touched, and examined the plates themselves. He also points to a premonition of his son's, which occurred in 1979 when the son was seven, that the sealed portion of the plates would be translated by someone named Mauricio "Burger" from Brazil.

At this point I have not yet read the Sealed Book and am not endorsing it -- merely passing on some potentially important news that is not yet generally known. My hunch is that this may well turn out to be entirely genuine.

⁂

Update: I apparently gave Mr. Pratt too much credit, thinking him much too intelligent to be taken in by an obvious fake. However, an obvious fake is precisely what Mr. Berger's plates turn out to be, as documented here: PDF.

As for the "translated" text supposedly derived from them, Mr. Berger claims that the English and Portuguese translations were both revealed to him by miraculous means even though he himself does not speak English. In fact, the English text was very obviously created from the Portuguese using Google Translate or some similar software.

For example, it twice refers to certain angels as belonging to "the order of the stars d'alva" or "the order of the star D'alva" -- a half-English expression obviously deriving from Estrela d'Alva, the Portuguese term for the Morning Star (Venus). Google Translate currently renders a ordem da estrela d'alva as "the order of the star of the morning" if alva is not capitalized; if it is written d'Alva, the translation is "the order of the star d'Alva."

It is also easy to see Google's fingerprints on the bit that retells the story of the "Watchers" from the Book of Enoch. These angelic beings -- called vigias or vigilantes in Portuguese -- are in the English text indiscriminately called watchers, watchmen, and vigilantes. These are all possible translations of the Portuguese, but to call the Enochian watchers "vigilantes" in English is completely absurd.

Verdict: This is very, very obvious baloney, and it has permanently damaged John Pratt's credibility in my eyes.