WiderBible: Recent Episodes

Adam Shull

Created by an engineer, WiderBible is a podcast of Bible stories for anyone who likes history, archeology, geography, chemistry, physics, and the word ‘unabridged.’

View Details

Hints of the true history of the world might be scattered among the islands of the world’s largest ocean.

All the quotes from the Bible for the main story were were taken from the English Standard Version (see ESV copyright here) or the New King James Version. For the other sources, including commentaries, websites, or articles, you can find links and references in the show notes below in the order they appeared. If you have any questions, there’s a link to contact me at the bottom of the page.

Show notes:


  1. For the time between Captain Cook leaving a small flat island and spotting the Hawaiian archipelago, see pg. 134 here which mentions that they left Christmas island at dawn on January 2, 1778 and pg. 135 in the same source that notes the discovery of land on January 19. The source here claims that they spotted land on January 18. I assume this discrepancy is due to Cook traveling eastward across what is now the international date line but not subtracting one day from his calendar, but that is just my guess. For the islands Cook discovered now being known as Hawaii, see pg. 106 in volume “H” of Boylan, D & Wester, L. (2020). Hawaii. In The world book encyclopedia (Vol 9. pg. 106). Chicago, IL: World Book. Google maps was used to measure the distance Hawaii is from the mainland of Asia, Australia, or North America. For canoes paddling out to meet Cook’s ships, see pg. 135 here.
  2. For Samuel Wallis as the first European to find Tahiti, but that Polynesians were there before him, see Lewis, N.D. (2020) Tahiti. In The world book encyclopedia. (Vol. 19, pgs. 13-14). Chicago, IL: World Book. and a reference to being met with over 150 canoes when he arrived here.
  3. For the European discovery of Easter Island by Jacob Roggeveen, see Langdon, R. (2020). Easter Island. In The world book encyclopedia. (Vol. 6 pgs. 44-45). Chicago, IL: World Book. That Roggeveen encountered people living there when he arrived is given by pg. 161 here.
  4. For people already being present in New Zealand when Abel Tasman arrived in 1642 as the first European explorer, see here.
  5. While many islands did have local inhabitants when European explorers mapped the Pacific, not all islands did. The last landfall Cook made prior to the discovery of the Hawaiian archipelago was a small flat uninhabited island according to pgs. 133-134 here. Even so, while that section notes there was no evidence humans had been there before, it also mentions that it looked barren and there was no water there so it’s not surprising to me that they found it uninhabited.
  6. Regarding the legends discussed in this episode, I should offer some warnings. First, the legends I mention are ones that show the most interesting similarities to the history in Genesis, not a fair sampling of all the legends found in the places discussed. In short, I cherry picked. There are many legends with unknown origins that don’t relate well to the history in the Bible. They could be heavily modified versions of what’s found in Genesis, corrupted versions of stories from local history that happened after people left Babel (stories Genesis says nothing about), or pure fiction. I’m not endeavoring to explain the origins of all myths, only present some of the stories that appear to resemble the history found in Genesis. Second, while I try to go back to the oldest stories I can find, for places in the Pacific Ocean that isn’t very old, only going back a few hundred years at most, so we don’t know if these are ancient or recent legends, we don’t know how they might’ve changed, and we don’t know if the people writing them down got everything right or let their own beliefs influence what they recorded. Finally, perhaps the biggest challenge is that we don’t know how long the natives of an place lived in that location or what contact they had with people from elsewhere in the world over the centuries before their stories were recorded. They might’ve moved to an island 3000 years ago, or only 800. They may have traveled the ocean and heard stories from traders or the legends they share could be their own family memories. None of this makes these stories necessarily incorrect or corrupted by outside influences, only that we can’t prove the stories are authentic ancient legends.
  7. For a history of the study of bird migration including the stork with a spear in its side, see here. For details on the 7,000 mile trip of the Godwit across the Pacific, see here.
  8. For the maximum estimated drop in sea level during the Ice Age for southeast Asia see table 9.1 on pg. 203 here where it notes a that sea level might’ve been 135 meters below the present level or just short of 443 feet. How the coastlines were affected by this loss of water is more complicated. In a simple model you would say that sea level went down, exposing more of the island and making it larger, but that’s not the only way the ice from the Ice Age affected the shoreline. As the ice built up on land, it pushed the land down, but on the edges where there wasn’t the weight of ice, the land bulged upward. For more, see the article here and here. How exactly this affected relative sea and land levels on the continental shelves around southeast Asia and Australia isn’t clear, though, if anything, given that the ice sheets were far away from that part of the globe (see image here which also shows extended coastlines) I would expect the land elevations around southeast Asia and Australia to stay the same or be pushed up out of the sea meaning that more land would be exposed as water moved from the oceans to the land-based glaciers. According to this article that there may also have been a land bridge between Asia and Australia though the article here supports the position that there was no land bridge between Asia and Australia due to the deep sea trenches in that part of the sea floor. All that said, the data suggests the coastlines of the islands of southeast Asia and Australia were likely nearer to one another than they are today even if there weren’t full land bridges. For a map of the ocean floor between southeast Asia and Australia, see here. For another source suggesting land bridges as a method for animals to spread between continents, see here which also offers the opinion that the Ice Age and the land bridges it exposed were part of God’s plan for animals to repopulate land around the world after the Flood.
  9. For a discussion of volcanoes and earthquakes that might’ve taken place during the Flood, see Episode 13.
  10. For iguanas colonizing a new island in the Caribbean after floating there on a mat of plants after hurricanes, see here
  11. For details about the floating logs on Spirit Lake near Mount St. Helens, see here. For the distance between Mount St. Helens and Spirit Lake, I measured the map here.
  12. In another example of drift wood that keeps drifting rather than sinking, a log in Crater Lake in the U.S. state of Oregon has been floating about the lake vertically for over 100 years. For more, see here.
  13. While the idea of floating debris islands transporting animals over larger bodies of water after the Flood is not my speculation, the article here) does point out a series of challenges to that idea including whether they would be able to carry large animals across oceans, whether the rafts could survive the storms they’d probably run into crossing an ocean, and concerns about how the islands would supply enough fresh water for the animals riding on them. To the last point, I wonder if the rain might be sufficient given the warm oceans and the rapid evaporation during that part of history (see other discussions about the Ice Age environment), but that is just my speculation. As for the question of whether mats of tangled vegetation could be large enough for big animals or survive ocean crossings, those are fair points, though perhaps it is underestimating the scale of the Flood to think that it couldn’t form very large and robust floating mats of vegetation as suggested by the articles here and here.
  14. As for the idea that land animals might’ve been transported by people, see the note on Genesis 8:17 here and the note here that mentions New Zealand didn’t have mammals until Europeans arrived.
  15. To me, when considering people leaving Babel or settling the world after the Flood, I think what mattered in navigating the oceans was how hard it was to find land and how long you had to travel. With that in mind, rather than using standard labels of Indonesia, Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia found today, I’ve divided this episode into whether the island in question was nearby and presumably easy to reach from the mainland of Asia, such as the large islands of Sumatra and Borneo or the continent of Australia with the little islands close to those larger lands, versus the small or faraway islands that would’ve taken much more skill and determination to reach, such as places in Polynesia (including New Zealand) and Micronesia. Whether islands like Fiji belong in one group or the other is up for debate in my opinion, but I chose to group it with the distant outlying islands.
  16. A few sources in this episode come up repeatedly. The first of them is a was written by Sir James George Frazer, whose material I’ve also used in other episodes. Frazer was not a proponent of the reliability and truth of the Bible (as an example, see comments on pgs. 332-338 and pgs. 343-344 here), but in the early 1900s he did helpfully publish a collection of many legends and myths found around the world that dealt with creation, floods, and other stories and compared them to what is found in the Bible. Beyond Frazer, I have also used some references from another author who republished and expanded Frazer’s material about 50 years later. That author, too, dismisses the validity of the Bible (see pgs. 35 and 39 here). Finally, I used a book that contains a collection of the mythology of the lands of the Pacific written by Roland Dixon as a source of legends from people who live in that region (see here). I’ve used other books from this series in other episodes. None of these books are perfect. Two of them were published over 100 years ago and are in the public domain and the other was published over 50 years ago, so they might lack more updated research on various legends. These authors do, however, reference their sources and at least appear to be scholarly works studying the legends of the lands of the Pacific, and as such I have treated the information they provide as factually accurate without tunneling down in most cases to the original reference they used in collecting a given legend. It is possible the sources they used were inaccurate, or that the authors themselves reported it incorrectly on purpose or by accident. At least two of the sources are not supportive of the accuracy of the history in Genesis (see comments above) which means that any evidence that does support that history cannot, at least, be blamed on their personal biases.
  17. For the distance across the strait of Malacca between the mainland of Asia and Sumatra, see here. The minimum distance is given as 40 miles in that article, but there are smaller islands that would’ve allowed shorter segments in certain places if you look at a map and measure distances, such as here.
  18. For the Portuguese discovering Sumatra in 1508 and putting outposts there, see pg. 74 here which also outlines briefly the history of Sumatra prior to European arrival.
  19. It is suggested on pg. 160-161 here that the Toba Battak people of Sumatra were probably the least affected by outsider beliefs, such as those from Hinduism or Islam, and therefore it is implied that their legends might be more genuine rather than mixed with outside elements. On the other hand, evidence of Hindu influence among the natives of Sumatra, including the Battas (another spelling of Battak) is suggested by the comment on pg. 74 here that Sanskrit (the sacred language of Hinduism) words are used including for a tree considered sacred among both the Battaks and Hindu.
  20. The legend of the Toba Battak, found on pgs.160-161 here might be a mix of several stories from Genesis since it mentions a great ocean, and the first world involving both a woman and a large snake (Genesis 1-3), the world destroyed by water (Genesis 6-8), and history starting from three sons (Genesis 9-10), but these parallels are only my speculation as the Battak story puts the elements and relationships in a different order than Genesis.
  21. Another legend from the Battak people, found on pgs. 162-163 here describes a god and his spouse trying to have children and going to live in a house by the sea. They make a garden but a giant snake comes and destroys it. The god gets a magic ring from the snake and has three sons and three daughters. The earth is made but the sons fight and the world is destroyed by earthquakes seven times until it is made more firm so that, while there are still earthquakes, the world isn’t destroyed by them. This series of details could be muddled memories of the history in Genesis as it includes a garden being destroyed because of a serpent (Genesis 3), the arrival of three sons and three daughters (which might be a memory of Noah’s three sons and three daughters-in-law), and the world being destroyed by earthquakes until it was fixed so that wouldn’t happen any more (perhaps a memory of God promising the world would no longer be destroyed) but these parallels are, once again, only my speculation. Combine those details with what is found in a further version of the legend on pgs. 217-218 here, and it sounds an awful lot like there might be Christian influence in the story since it includes reference to people going to heaven or being thrown into a vat that is on fire until their sins are burned up before the sun and the fire do the same to the physical universe, elements that would suggest certain Christian beliefs have worked their way into native stories rather than the tale being a genuine native history.
  22. Another story from the Battak people says that a raven once flew over a dark ocean, before a god came, made light and a raft and put dirt on it to create land. This sounds like a combination of the creation of the world in Genesis 1 that mentions a great ocean, light, and land, and the events at the end of the Flood with a raven searching for land in Genesis 8, but this story, mentioned on pgs. 161-162 here also notes that this tribe had contact with Islam, which could imply that there was information from Genesis leaking into the local legend.
  23. Another Battak story tells of a flood sent by the creator to kill everything on earth. The water had gotten up to the knees of the last two humans who stood at the top of the highest mountain when the creator changed his mind. He gave the people a little dirt to stand on. They had children to repopulate the world, and the dirt grew larger to make room for them until it covered the world. For the story, see pg. 100 here. I don’t know if there is Christian influence in it or not (the author makes no comment about it) though other Battak stories, mentioned in show notes above, might be influenced from Christian or other outside sources.
  24. For Borneo as the third largest island in the world, see here.
  25. For the story from Borneo of a great snake swimming in a worldwide ocean at the start of creation, see pg. 159 here.
  26. For the story from Borneo of two trees, a snake, a woman, and the birth of sons and evil spirits from the sky-world, see pg. 159 here. While there are lots of muddled similarities to the story in Genesis, the author who recorded the story made no suggestion that it was due to missionaries having interacted with the tribe, though that is not proof that such contact never happened.
  27. In some stories collected on pgs. 174-175 here it talks about how two birds went through some trial and error to create people. There are different versions of the story. In one, they started with clay, then went to wood, and then a different kind of wood before they were successful, but when they went back to make more people they couldn’t remember how and ended up making monkeys and orangutans instead. Other versions have them starting with wood and only succeeding in making people when they used clay or using stone, then wood, before finally successfully using dirt with people descended from this final success.
  28. For the stories from Borneo of trial-and-error creation of humans using different materials until a successful version was found, see pgs. 174-175 here.
  29. For God taking a rest on the seventh-day of creation after finishing the creation of the world in six days, see Genesis 1:26-2:2.
  30. For the story from Borneo of the first people coming from eggs and getting the breath of mortality rather than immortality, see pgs. 169-170 here as well as pgs. 174-175 noting that a story like it is also told on the nearby island of Sulawesi. In another story from Borneo, plants got the water of life rather than humans, so that humans die while plants do not as noted on pgs. 173-174 here. Once again, the author makes no mention that missionaries might’ve affected the local legend, though we cannot say for certain whether it did or did not happen.
  31. For the story of killing and skinning a giant snake only to be swept away in a Flood that distributed people in different places, see pg. 181 here.
  32. For the story of the Dyaks of Borneo who also mention killing a great snake before a flood came, see pg. 101-102 here. According to the story, only a woman and a few animals survived the flood. The legend rapidly diverges from any parallels to Genesis from there. Another version of the story has them killing the snake after seeing it come down from the sky to eat their rice (see pgs. 180-181 here.
  33. For the legend from Borneo of a Flood where only the tallest mountain stayed above the water and it took 3 months for the water to go down, see pg. 102 here.
  34. For the reference to the son of the sky-god coming from heaven on a rainbow, see pg. 156 here.
  35. In a legend from Sulawesi on pg. 173 here the author notes that god formed man and woman from the dirt and brought them to life by blowing ginger into their ears and head. In another source, on pg. 723 in Kearsley, G. R., Mayan Genesis (2001) Yelsraek publishing the author says the names of the people were Adam and Ewa along with references to a tree and a god saying that it was good after land appeared from the ocean. That author argues that the names show outside influence, and I’ll admit that the similarity in names supports that belief. As with all legends that show parallels to the history in Genesis, it is difficult to tell whether a close detail is evidence of an outside story getting mixed in or simply evidence of history being handed down exceptionally well.
  36. For the story from Sulawesi of a woman and mouse surviving a flood, see pg. 102 here.
  37. For a map of Indonesia, see here.
  38. For the origin of the name and the Spanish history of the Philippines, see here.
  39. For stories from the Philippines that mention people being made from grass or reeds, see pgs. 175-176 here. For the comment of the creator making people from the ground and then spitting on them to bring them to life, see pg. 173 in the above source. For the note that the people thought to be least affected by foreign sources have no stories of creation, see pg. 155 in that source. In another reference, pg. 225 here tells of eight people being made from grass before most of their descendants die in a Flood. To me this sounds like a confused memory of the Flood and the eight people who survived it, but that is just my speculation.
  40. For the note that while stories of creation are lacking among people who might be least affected by outsiders, stories of a Flood show up among all the people, see pg. 155 here and often are the start of history legends according to pgs. 178-179 in the above source.
  41. For the story from the Philippines of everyone drowning in a Flood except for a pregnant woman, see pg 225 here.
  42. For a brother and sister surviving the a flood on separate mountains and then repopulating the world after it, see pg. 170-172 here. See also pgs. 179-180 in the same source.
  43. For New Guinea being the second largest island in the world, see here.
  44. For some tribes in New Guinea saying that the first man came from the ground and the first woman from a tree, see pg. 110 here. A parallel to Adam being made from the ground in the history in Genesis is clear. Perhaps the woman being born from a tree shows that they remembered something of Eve and the forbidden fruit (a woman associated with a tree) rather than being made from a rib, but that is my speculation.
  45. The comment on pg. 103 here suggests that legends from people living away from the coasts of New Guinea is limited, which I assume is due to only limited contact with the outside world, at least as of the writing of the book in question in the early 1900s.
  46. For the story from New Guinea of the king of the snakes stopping a great Flood, see pgs. 119-120 here.
  47. For the story of a man who told people not to eat a certain big fish, but they ate it anyway and then died in a flood, see pg. 237 here. To me, this story has elements not only of the flood, but of the forbidden food as well, though that is only my observation.
  48. For the story from the Admiralty Islands (see pg. 205 here) near New Guinea of a large snake calling for a reef to rise and make land out of a worldwide ocean, see pg. 105 here.
  49. For other stories of people made from wood found near to the Admiralty islands see pgs. 106-107 here. That story includes the creation of three men and three women from wood by a good being with a bad being later making more which decayed, which is given as the reason people die. In an alternate story, the first man was made of clay and the first woman from trees. Regarding the first legend, it is purely my speculation, but given how long Shem and Noah, and presumably the other 6 people on the ark, lived after the Flood compared to people later on, I wonder if there could be some memory of Noah’s sons and their wives versus everyone else in this story. For the ages of Shem and Noah at their deaths, see Genesis 9:29 and Genesis 11:10-11.
  50. For the story of a woman who met a snake that could talk, had children with him, and the snake gave them food the children thought was better than their previous food, see pg. 116 here. It is easy to draw links between this story and the events of Eve talking to a serpent and eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil found in Genesis 3, though that is my speculation. It is possible the parallels are due to outside influence, but the author makes no suggestion that outsiders affected the story in the above reference.
  51. Another story from the Admiralty islands says that a man and woman, floated on the ocean on a piece of driftwood and wondered whether the water would ever dry up. Eventually it did and a land of hills appeared, but with no plants, so the two people planted trees and made food according to pg. 105 here. Given that this story doesn’t say where the people, the driftwood, or the belief in land came from it sounds to me more like the story of the end of a worldwide Flood than a creation story, though it could be a cobbled together memory of both stories since according to Genesis creation began and the Flood ended with the world covered in water.
  52. For the story of people in the Admiralty islands who tried to construct a building that reached the sky only to be told to stop, have water dripped on them, and have their language confused, see pgs. 383-384 here, though the author in that case says that there “can be little doubt” that the story is a memory from missionaries.
  53. For the sun offering immortality, and snakes and stones living forever but people not listening so they die instead, see pg. 119 here.
  54. For Australia being about 20% desert today, see here. For the current size of Lake Eyre in Australia, see here which reports 5.7 meter max depth and 30 cubic kilometers of water, which is as large as it got during the flood in 1974 according to the article here. That’s about 1.5 times the combined volume of the north and south parts of the Great Salt Lake according to figures here and here. The study here also suggests that Lake Eyre had a depth of over 80 feet and a volume of around 520 cubic kilometers when filled during past Ice Age events. Compare that with data here that says Lake Erie in North America has 484 cubic kilometers of water at low level. Erie is also deeper and has less surface area than the proposed past extent of Lake Eyre.
  55. For the river system that used to flow through what is today the Simpson desert in Australia, see here.
  56. The idea of a lush forest in Australia might be supported by stories from aborigines. In one story from near lake Eyre found on pgs. 3-5 see here they say the deserts in the center of Australia used to be like a garden covered in giant trees with a thick canopy of leaves. They tell of the sky covered with continuous clouds. The legend also includes references to Kadimakara animals that came down from the gum trees, got stuck on earth when the gum trees were destroyed, and that the bones of those animal are sites of ceremonies by the aborigines. Reading further in that source, pgs. 80 and 230-235 connect the Kadimakara bones to the Diprotodon (see here). The author who tells the story notes that the legends might be made up, or a memory of some other place people lived before coming to Australia given that ancient legends also talk about sandy hills. Eventually, the author concludes (on pg. 235) with his belief that given the variation of the legends he thinks the aborigines came from somewhere else and imported stories of an ancient rainforest from where they used to live rather than there once being a rainforest in the center of Australia. That source, however, was from the early 1900s. A century later, we gained the insight that there were rivers in the Simpson desert and Lake Eyre was much larger in the past (see above show notes) but I couldn’t find updated references to whether scholars now think the aborigines were remembering Australia or some other place they used to live before migrating there. There are other references, such as the article here and reference in another work (see pg. 194 here which points back to this earlier author and notes that the legend from the Dieri aligns with what we now know about what Australia used to be like. Personally, given what we’ve found of ancient rivers and lakes in the deserts there and that detail about a thick cover of clouds that matches what the world might’ve been like after the Flood, I wonder if the aborigines are remembering Australia in the centuries after the Flood, but that’s only my speculation.
  57. Supporting a general idea that Australia used to be more lush, see the article here which theorizes how Australia went from lush to arid over a long period of time. For one proposed alignment of the geologic column with a creationist understanding of history, see here. In that comparison, the more forested period of Australia’s history aligns with when the floodwaters were falling, but, to me, it suggests in the early years after the Flood Australia was a wetter continent than it is today, though I don’t know how quickly that changed or when pioneers leaving Babel might’ve arrived.
  58. As stated earlier, a source I used for the mythology of native Australians was written in 1916 and pg. 269 here mentions that there isn’t a lot of mythology from native Australians because so many had died and parts of the continent were still unknown. Presumably the second part of that statement has changed in the last century, but it is worth noting that some of the details of Australian mythology I present in this episode may be out of date. That said, the main issue would not be that the recorded stories are inaccurate, only that additional legends found in the last 100 years add data that is lacking in the material published in 1916.
  59. For the comment that native legends of creation aren’t common in Australia, see pg. 270 here. That source mentions that one region of Australia does talk about all things being made in the beginning by some being, but then says, “these statements may not necessarily mean all that seems to be implied” and suggests that only certain features of the land were thought to have been created. That page goes on to say that stories claim people either appeared on their own, appeared incomplete but were finished somehow, or were made by a god. For the argument that monotheism is not native to Australia, see the article here that says that any stories of a monotheistic god (called “All-Father”) in Australian mythology were brought there by Christians are not an original Australian belief.
  60. For men and women in Australia being made from clay and mud or thrown from the sky by an angry god, see pgs. 273-274 here.
  61. For the belief in part of Australia that an evil spirit in the shape of a snake caused death, see pgs. 24-25 here.
  62. For the number of snake species and number of venomous snake species in Australia, see here as referenced in an earlier episode.
  63. The “rainbow serpent” of Australian legends comes in lots of different formats, but it is noted as both a creator and a being that controls rain and droughts here.
  64. For Australian flood legends, the author on pgs. 165-166 here notes that Australia has lots of legends, but none that parallel the history in Genesis.
  65. For the story of some people being taken to heaven, most people dying, and only one man and woman escaping a flood by climbing a tree on a mountain, see pg. 236 here
  66. For the story of a creator cutting people into pieces due to their evil behavior and the wind scattering them around the world where they developed into people again, see pg. 274 here. The author argues the story is at least somewhat due to the influence of missionaries but suggests at least some of it is probably original to native Australians.
  67. For the size of Taiwan compared to other countries, see here. For its distance from the mainland of Asia and a description of the the mountains on the island, see here.
  68. To calculate that Taiwan was once connected to the mainland of Asia, I assumed sea levels used to be 100 meters lower during the Ice Age and measured the sea floor depth on the map here. I did not take into account any land level changes due to the weight of ice discussed earlier. See earlier show note for a more complete discussion.
  69. For the story from Taiwan of a snake and crab fighting before a Flood came and covered all the world but two mountains, see pgs. 232-233 here. There is also an alternate version of the story (on pg. 232) where rain fell for a long time but a giant snake blocked the river causing it to back up into a flood. In that case people survived on a mountain until a crab cut the snake’s body apart to let the water drain away. In both cases a snake is involved in the story and in the first some idea that the flood made some of the mountains where the land had been flat before.
  70. For a brother and sister repopulating the world after a flood according to the Ami people of Taiwan, see pgs. 226-227 here. Note that while it doesn’t say it was a worldwide flood, it does describe the brother and sister finding themselves alone in the world, perhaps implying that the flood killed everyone else, though you could also argue that other people survived but only at some far distance where they were unknown.
  71. For the second version of the Ami legend where the flood is caused by an earthquake, see pgs. 227-229 here. Once again it doesn’t say the flood was global, but the survivors didn’t find anyone living afterward, and when they went back to their boat to try to sail back to their homeland, it was rotten and they couldn’t use it. It is possible that other people survived, or that it was a local flood and the survivors didn’t hunt far enough to find people, but that’s all speculation. The gist of the story is that there were initially only three survivors. In addition, the story doesn’t explicitly say that the brother and sister became the ancestors of people in the world today, but it does have them giving birth to a stone out of which four children eventually come, some with shoes and some without, with the author suggesting the children who wore shoes were probably thought to be the Chinese, though he doesn’t speculate on who the barefooted children were. To me, it is interesting that this legend not only mentions water coming out of the ground which parallels the “fountains of the great deep” from Genesis 7:11 but also notes that there was smoke rising from a mountain after the flood that frightened the survivors, which makes me wonder if their story has some recollection of the condition of the world after the flood with ongoing volcanic activity, but that is just my speculation.
  72. Looking at ocean floor depths here around Japan to decide whether Japan would’ve been connected to the mainland of Asia if sea levels were 100 meters lower than they are today suggests that some places would be connected, but that parts of Japan would still be islands. For instance, the straits between Japan and Korea are more than 100 meters deep in places today so there might still be some water there. To the north, though, the island of Hokkaido looks like it would be connected to the island of Sakhalin and Sakhalin would be connected to the mainland. To the south, the channel between Hokkaido and Honshu looks to be deep enough that those two islands would still have water between them, even if the waterway was quite narrow. All this said, I am only using sea floor depth for these estimates and ignoring the degree to which the earth’s crust moved up or down in that location due to the weight of ice on the Asian mainland (see earlier show note for a more detailed discussion) so take the assumptions of what islands may or may not have been connected as a best guess.
  73. For the suggestion that the Ainu may have been the first people to live in what is today Japan, see the article Ohnuki-Tierney, Emiko. “Ainu.” The World Book Encyclopedia, 2020 ed. There are legends of the Ainu defeating other people who lived there prior, but the comment on pg. 12 here suggests that this is just a memory of another Ainu clan and not a different people group. For the Ainu living on all the major islands of Japan at one point, before being forced to the northern region of Japan, see here.
  74. The actual origins of the Ainu are a mystery. They don’t look like the other people around them, as mentioned here, with their language being dissimilar as well according to the article Ohnuki-Tierney, Emiko. “Ainu.” The World Book Encyclopedia, 2020 ed. which notes that the Ainu language has not be “clearly classified,” with the suggestion that the Ainu language isn’t linked to Japanese going back to at least the early 1900s as given by pg. 11 here. The article mentioned above from Ohnuki-Tierney, Emiko. “Ainu.” The World Book Encyclopedia, 2020 ed. also notes that some researchers suggest the Ainu are related to Europeans, but doesn’t elaborate on who these researchers are or how they think the Ainu and Europeans are connected.
  75. For Ainu legends that parallel some of the history in Genesis, I used the book found here. It was published in 1901 and written by a missionary to the Ainu (see title page here). This might make the book sound quite biased, but evidently the value of it as a scholarly resource was considered sufficient for the editors of the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica to use it as one of their references when writing their entry on the Ainu found on pgs. 441-442 here with the book above mentioned at the end of the article. Assuming the material in that book is accurate, it offers several interesting Ainu legends that show similarities to the history in Genesis. Starting with pgs. 35-37 it describes their belief that the world was originally only an ocean of land mixed up with water to form a muddy swamp. The author notes the parallel between this Ainu story and creation in Genesis, but also states that the story fits so well with standard Ainu beliefs that if their beliefs were influenced by knowledge of Genesis, it must have been very long ago. In the same source, pgs. 4-5 note the Ainu belief that the creator god made the first man from dirt, plants, and a willow branch. Though there are a couple of versions of how a tree that brought disease came into the world, the standard belief offered on pg. 44-45 in the above source is that the tree causing diseases and suffering grew from the rotting tools the creator used to shape the world (the less standard story, offered on pgs. 45-46, is that this tree came from heaven and was planted on Earth fully grown). As for the tree itself, the author notes that it wasn’t the source of “moral evil” (as in sin) but the cause of pain and suffering, noting that the Ainu think it was from the bark rotting, turning to dust, and then blowing around on the wind. The author also notes that fresh bark from the tree could be used to make a medicine for diseases as described on pgs. 45-47 in that reference. In introducing this tree that brought pain and suffering into the world on pg. 45, the author mentioned that he’d been telling people about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil from Genesis and a man said he thought this alder from their legend was the same tree. For discussion of the Ainu legends about snakes see pg. 357 in the above reference where it mentions the first snake used to be in heaven along with the belief that he is a good god who is worthy to be worshiped. In one version of the story of how the snake came to Earth, the author notes (on pgs. 358-359) that the creator sent the goddess of fire to the Earth to be in charge of it on his behalf and the snake wanted to be with the woman and eventually got permission and came to Earth as a flash of lightning. Further legends (on pg. 360) mention that when snakes went underground they took looked like people and the belief that snakes are evil and want to hurt people. The legend on pgs. 361-362 tells of a large beautiful snake that tried to tempt an Ainu man to sin, but he refused, was cursed to live for a thousand years, and when the snake was killed she became stinging ants and wasps. This story is a bit confusing in that it says the Ainu man refused to sin because he was “God-fearing” which sounds very Christian, but that may just be an English term for a similar Ainu concept. Furthermore, such ideas as fearing God pre-date the dispersion at Babel so it doesn’t necessarily show the Ainu to have been influenced by Christianity, but as with all these oral legends, that is a possibility. The author also notes (on pg. 365) that the Ainu do not link snakes to how sin came into the world, but they do think they are an enemy of humans and especially hate women and will try to get power over them and make them insane or crazy if they get the chance, with the Ainu believing that having a snake control you or bing possessed by a devil are the same thing. This idea has obvious connections to Genesis 3 where a woman was tricked by the devil in the form of a snake (for the devil and the snake linked together, which isn’t explicit in Genesis 3, see Revelation 12:9). For a discussion of worshiping an idol of a snake when there are difficulties with child birth and the belief that snakes are the causes of these difficulties, see pgs. 366-368 in the above source. That could be seen as a link to Genesis 3:16 where childbirth became more difficult after Eve gave into the temptation from the snake in Eden, though that is only my speculation, and worshiping snakes isn’t specifically limited to that situation as pg. 368 notes that it was also used in at least one example for someone suffering from fevers and chills. As with all these stories that are oral traditions, we don’t know whether the legends from the Ainu that sound like the history in Genesis come from some previous contact with people telling that history or were remembered and handed down through the generations since their forefathers received the story from Noah and his sons. For previous discussions of people who twisted the history from Genesis and came to believe the snake was good rather than evil, see stories in Episode 7.
  76. The Ainu legend of the first snake descending to the Earth as lightning from heaven makes me think of Jesus’ comments in Luke 10:18 of seeing Satan fall from heaven like lightning. I suppose one could argue that the Ainu legend comes from some past knowledge of that comment from the New Testament, but no reference to that idea was made in the sources I found. Furthermore, it would mean the Ainu recalled that comment from Jesus, but forgot all other references to how this first snake was evil since they believe the first serpent is good and worthy to be worshiped as noted in the above show note. In addition, one could wonder whether the snake idols they make and use during diseases or after snake bites (see pg. 367 here) were based on knowledge in the past of the bronze serpent set up by Moses (see Numbers 21:4-9) but no mention of such a possibility was noted by the author and I didn’t notice parallels to other stories related to Moses that you might expect if this behavior was because of memories of the bronze serpent. While there is no evidence Christians influenced Ainu beliefs, there is always room for that accusation, though similarities aren’t necessarily evidence of Christian influence. If the stories in question come from before people separated at Babel, it might simply be evidence that people remember their ancient history and a validation of the accuracy of the history in Genesis, albeit with various differences having crept in through many generations of handing the story down. In short, if a legend sounds like the history in Genesis, it can be either evidence of recent influence from Christianity or of imperfect memories of everyone’s common origins. For another explanation of the bronze serpent, see Episode 7.
  77. The distances between small islands dotting the Pacific can be measured here.
  78. For a description with references for the ocean-going boats used by people living in the Pacific, see the source here which mentions on pg. 54 that these catamaran ships they were 50 to 75 feet long, pgs. 56-58 that note different versions of the open ocean vessels, pgs. 70-71 that records Captain Cook’s estimate that these watercraft could go 120 miles or more per day (with the author of the source adding that this depended on wind direction and whether the ship had to tack), and pg. 80 where another person who traveled with Cook saw one boat he thought carried 80 to 100 people.
  79. We don’t know how long Ham or Japheth lived, but if they lived a similar length of time to the 500 year lifespan of Shem recorded in Genesis 11:11 and people were migrating across the sea within those first five centuries, Japheth and Ham might’ve been able to explain much about how to build and provision a ship for surviving on the open ocean. See further reference to people possibly migrating by boat given the family’s boat-building heritage here. Whether Japheth and Ham did pass that information along is only speculation.
  80. I tried to go through the legends from the more distant islands of the Pacific starting near to Australia and working further and further out. For this I searched locations (such as for the Marshall islands) here and assumed that map to be sufficiently accurate.
  81. One author notes a lack of legends in Micronesia due to early explorers failing to record them. They note that there aren’t many detailed stories and what we do have shows many differences between one legend and another on pgs. 247-248 here. For the tendency to believe that people were originally supposed to live forever, see pg. 252-253 in the above source.
  82. For the story from Palau of a bird causing the water of life to be spilled on trees rather than people, see pgs. 252-253 here See pg. 254 in that source where “Obagat” is called a god. The book says the Pelew islands, but that is the same as Palau according to this source. Also note that the water of life was spilled on plants in Borneo story mentioned earlier from pgs. 173-174 in the same book.
  83. For the story from Palau (called Pelew islands, see above show note) of a flood, see pgs. 253-254 here.
  84. For the Flood story from the island of Yap, see pgs. 256-247 here. While the story doesn’t explicitly say that everyone else in the world died, it does mention that the woman had seven children after the flood who spread out around the world.
  85. For the story from the western Caroline islands of a female god making things grow by speaking, see pg. 248 here. Later in that section it notes another story from the Carolines where a male god sends plants from heaven and the Gilbert islands where a god and his daughter make haven and earth.
  86. For the story from the western Caroline islands of a mother who said she’d come back to life on the seventh day after dying, but her children got distracted eating fruit and didn’t dig her back up in time, see pg. 253 here. It is interesting to me that that story has elements of fruit causing death and the memory of a seven day period which might be memories of the history from Genesis, though that is my speculation. The author makes the offhand comment that there may have been elements from missionaries in the story, though that appears to be speculation based on similarity and not necessarily evidence. On the same page it also discusses other stories from the Caroline islands including a head god asking if people should live again after dying and another being said they should stay dead and a reference to an evil being making it so people died forever rather than only for a short time each month before coming back to life.
  87. For the story from the New Hebrides of a being making ten mud statues and bringing to life ten men by breathing on them before turning one into a woman, see pg. 107 here. Another story, on pg. 110 in that source, mentions another legend where the first woman came from a shell which turned into a woman.
  88. In a story from the island of Ambrym, the gods once thought that people should live forever by shedding their skin like a snake when it got wrinkled but an evil god instead had them be buried according to pgs. 117-118 here.
  89. For the story of the flood from the Loyalty islands, see pg. 568 here which mentions a man building a boat on dry ground, and saying the sea would come to it, and a flood in which everyone else drowns. The story doesn’t say what happened to the canoe or “Nol” who built it, though with everyone else drowning, I would assume the person or people on the raft survived. Regardless of name similarities between “Noah” and “Nol” no comment is made suggesting the story comes from missionaries. That author does refer to a similar story found on pgs. 240-241 here from the New Hebrides where the man also put a cover on the boat and brought his family and animals aboard. In that story, there’s a flood and the boat and its occupants leave the island and go out to sea and have never come back. In that case, the legend is odd in that it is the boat that disappears and the people left behind who are still around after the flood rather than only the people on the boat surviving the flood. Perhaps the story got reversed or confused at some point, but that is only my speculation.
  90. According to a source from 100 years ago, the natives of New Zealand appear to be made up of earlier and later settlers (all of who arrived before Europeans) according to pgs. 9-10 here with the stories from the first people missing or hard to find compared to the stories of the later settlers. This makes the stories from New Zealand more open to the accusation that they were later developments rather than original memories, as supported by the comment at the end of the first paragraph on pg. 10 of the above source. For the suggestion that some of the settlers of New Zealand might’ve come from Taiwan, see here.
  91. For the story from New Zealand of the world being created by a god looking in various directions, see pgs. 12-13 here. To me, if I understand the story correctly, it seems like a memory (missionary influence or not) of the Earth being created with “looking” in this legend replacing “speaking” from the history of creation in Genesis, though that is my speculation.
  92. For the New Zealand story of the first people being made from soil or clay mixed with blood and noting the confusion of names in the sources for who is the god and who is the created being, see pgs. 23-24 here.
  93. For the story from New Zealand of two prophets being mocked before they built a raft and survived a flood that lasted several months, see pg. 250-252 here.
  94. For a bird laying eggs that are hatched by a snake and become the first man and woman, see pg. 109 here. The story doesn’t explicitly say that these people were the parents of mankind, but that is the context of the other stories in the paragraph which offer different versions of people coming from eggs.
  95. For the story from Fiji where only eight people survive a flood on boats, see pgs. 239-240 here.
  96. A story mentioning that the people of the island of Mangaia are all the descendants of three sons of the god Rongo can be found on pg. 26 here which references pg. 16 here. I wonder if the memory of the population being descended from three sons of one man is a memory of Noah and his sons repopulating the world. That might be unreasonable, and it could just be a separate memory of how the islands themselves were colonized, but it’s worth remembering that to a small group of people out middle of the ocean, they might see their little islands or the islands in their immediate vicinity as all the land in the world depending on how much seafaring they did or how people spread out over generations instead of in a single lifetime. If they did spread slower, or if most people stayed on an island and only a few traveled the open ocean, most people on these islands would spend their whole lives just in one location, but that is my speculation.
  97. For the story from the Society islands of a woman made from the ground who became the mother of all people in the world, see pgs. 25-26 here.
  98. For the story from Tahiti of only two people surviving a flood on a mountain and becoming the parents of mankind, see pgs. 242-243 here. It is interesting to me that the story mentions wind going away since Genesis 8:1 also includes wind in connection to the Flood. In addition, I wonder if the detail of rocks falling from the sky is either a recollection of volcanoes at the Flood, or simply elements of other memories of volcanoes and the debris they throw into the air mixed into the Flood story, but that is my speculation. On pg. 245 of the above source, the author points out that the flood story in Tahiti only mentions water rising, but doesn’t talk about rain coming down.
  99. In another source, it says that people in Tahiti recall god forming man from red earth, making him fall asleep, and then using one of his bones to make a woman, with the man and woman becoming the parents of all humans and noting that the word for “bone” in Tahitian was “Ivi” (pronounced “Eve”). The recorder of that story, found on pg. 96 here, was of the opinion that natives were just repeating the story from Genesis that they had heard, though he notes that he heard the tale more than once and was told over and over that they already knew that story before any outsider came to their island.
  100. One story (see pgs 241-242 here referencing comments starting on pg. 386 here) describes the end of a flood legend in “Eimeo” with a man arriving in a canoe and building an altar. The island “Eimeo” is probably “Moorea” near Tahiti (see here). I could not find reference to this story elsewhere, but in fairness, it was a first-hand account from around 1830 of someone who lived in that region, so there may not be many other documents attesting the same information.
  101. In Samoa and Tahiti there are artificial mounds and stepped pyramid structures that may or may not be related to the stepped pyramids found elsewhere in the world. One, from the island of Samoa, is known as “Pulemelei.” An article here described LiDAR scans of Samoa that show much more development of the land in times past than it is now but not discussing the mound itself in detail. More detail on the size is given on pg. 105 here including that it was close to 200 feet long on a side, slightly rectangular, stood nearly 40 feet tall and was estimated to be 700-900 years old. On pg. 106 the author notes that the mound was thought to be used in the past for catching pigeons and as a chief’s home. A different mound, found in Tahiti, is mentioned on pg. 772 in Kearsley, G.R., Mayan Genesis (2001) Yelsraek publishing which appears to be the Marae of Mahaiatea discussed on pgs. 75-76 here. According to pg. 187 here a “marae” was a religious site with the larger ones being for more public ceremonies. According to pg. 13234 here it says the “largest coastal temples” were completed in the 1700s AD just before contact with Europeans which fits with the comment on pg. 75 here that the marae of Mahaiatea it was only completed a year earlier than Cook saw it with the size of 267 feet long, 87 feet wide, and 11 steps of 4 feet each to a top 44 feet above the ground given by Captain Cook on pgs. 168-169 here where he notes that the people there wanted to build the mounds as evidence of their power. For a drawing of the marae in Tahiti, see pg. 181 here. Altogether, from the above data, it is clear people on these islands built mounds, and that some even followed a step-sided pattern, but we don’t know whether such structures were memories of the step-sided mounds found in China or the pyramids of Egypt or ancient Ziggurats discussed in previous episodes and brought to the islands by settlers from those places or developed independently. I did not see a suggested link between these Pacific mounds and pyramid structures on the mainland or the tower of Babel. That is only my speculation.
  102. For one version of creation from the Marquesas, see pg. 11 here that references pg. 63 here
  103. For the story from the Marquesas of a god pulling land up out of the sea with a fish hook and then making a wife out of sand, see pg. 20 here for figuring whether it was one god and a worldwide sea with another floating on the water or just one god, and pgs. 25-26 in the same source where it references a god making a wife for himself out of sand.
  104. Even with all these legends of floods, the author suggests on pgs. 38-39 here that stories of a flood in Polynesia weren’t very important, but were just little parts of larger stories. To me, whether the flood story is an episode of its own or a part of a larger drama isn’t particularly relevant. Even in Genesis, the Flood could be considered part of the larger story of what happened after people became evil or part of the origin of the world as we know it today. I’m not sure what distinguishes it as an important story or an episode in a larger story other than the amount of detail contained in the recollection of the flood.
  105. Wherever oral traditions are collected, there is the danger that outside influence has crept in. With respect to the lands of the south Pacific, there could be a Christian bias due to missionaries or others with Christian background writing down the stories we have, or influence from other religions. In comments on pg. 153 here the author mentions trying to separate Hindu and Islamic elements from the legends being documented from Indonesia, but notes that it is hard to do so. On pg. 242 he doesn’t extend that influence further than the islands closer to southeast Asia, and suggests the tribes further from the coast might have been less affected by outside beliefs, but again says it is hard to tell which ideas come from natives and what parts might come from Islamic or Indian sources, but argues there are still many stories that come from local sources (though that is only that author’s opinion). Finally, in comments on pgs. 304-307, the author states beliefs from India or Islam traveled as far as the western parts of New Guinea, and notes that there isn’t clear evidence of contact with the Americas, though that book was published over 100 years ago and theories of contact between Asia and the Americas across the Pacific is suggested by at least one other author (see Kearsley, G. R., Mayan Genesis (2001) Yelsraek publishing).
  106. I gave some of the background for sources I used in this episode in an earlier show note, specifically mentioning Sir James George Frazer and his disbelief concerning the stories in the Bible. In his collection of legends of floods, he concluded that they were either memories of regular river flooding or due to earthquakes and tsunamis (see pgs. 344-361 here). Furthermore, one of the ideas that comes up in Frazer’s book is the suggestion that stories found around the world that appear to parallel the history in Genesis are really examples of natives parroting back stories that they had heard from missionaries (see, for example, pgs. 238-239 in above reference). The later author who republished and expanded Frazer’s work has the same disbelief (see pgs. 21-22 here). The third oft-cited reference also mentions missionary influence on pg. 119 here. There is some validity to these comments and opinions about possible missionary contact changing local legends, and it is important to inspect the sources of stories from around the world to determine, as far as possible, whether they are truly local memories or legends influenced by outsiders (see, for instance, my attempt to avoid stories of Greek mythology that come from sources written after the time of Alexander the Great in the show notes for Episode 18). Beyond inspection of sources, though, the dismissal of stories that bear resemblance to the history in Genesis solely on that basis, rather than avoiding outside influence on history, might be introducing it. If the history in Genesis is true, getting rid of stories that sound like Genesis may be getting rid of the real history these oral traditions recall. For other reasons against the “missionary influence” argument, see show notes below.
  107. As an example of the things done to protect material brought back from an asteroid from contamination when it was brought to Earth, see here.
  108. In the course of researching this episode, the legends from Hawaii took some figuring because some of them are awfully close parallels to the history in Genesis. One Hawaiian legend mentioned on pg. 24 here says that three gods sculpted man out of saliva and red dirt and breathed life into him. (They also say the first woman came from one of the man’s ribs though the author claims that part must be due to contact with missionaries). In another story, two people survived the flood at the top of mount Mauna Kea according to pg. 245 here. That story comes from 1822 and the original legend included no mention of a ship, though the author goes on to tell a second version (pgs. 245-246 in the above source) that includes rain and people surviving in a canoe that the author suggests is due to influence from the Bible, an opinion also supported by pg. 40 here which thinks the details of the Hawaiian story show it is due missionary contact. In other books there are specific comments made about how close the parallels are between Hawaiian legends and the history in the Bible with pgs. 15-30 here specifically discussing the issue, including mentioning someone named “Nuu” who survived a flood by building a large ship with a house on it after his god told him to and then later offering a sacrifice to the moon thinking it was god only to have the true god come down on a rainbow and forgive him for the mistake (pgs. 20-21). That source also mentions characters in Hawaiian lore that parallel events in the life of Abraham (pgs. 21-22), others that sound like the history of Joseph from Genesis (pgs. 22-23), references to the sun standing still on pgs. 24-25 (though the rest of that legend doesn’t sound like the events in Joshua 10), and even things that sound like stories of Moses and Aaron (referenced on pg. 25) and Jonah (pg. 25). Various attempted explanations for these parallels are discussed on pgs. 26-30 including that nomadic Israelites had some contact with the Hawaiians or their ancestors or that the history in Genesis and the Hawaiian legends both come from some older source with the suggestion (on pg. 28) that perhaps the sun standing still and story of Jonah in the Bible were also invented from older stories (though that would dismiss the accuracy of the Bible). Another reference to the similarities between the history in the Bible and Hawaiian legends comes up in a book on pg. 34-35 here, written by a king of the Hawaiians in the 1800s, where he argues that the similarities are due to the Hawaiian stories being an independent memory of history and not from contact with Israelites. That book, when talking about the Hawaiian legends, though, makes clear comparisons between the history in Genesis and Hawaiian stories showing the author was familiar with the history in Genesis (see pgs 36-38). These similarities between the history in the Bible and Hebrew legends can be hard to explain. It’s possible that nomadic Israelites or other people had contact with ancestors of the Hawaiians at some point in their history either before they migrated out into the Pacific — the Hawaiian ancestors might’ve only migrated to Hawaii about 800 years ago according to this paper — or by later travel back and forth across the ocean. It’s also possible that these Hawaiian stories are independent memories of history (though if that’s the case, it’s not clear why they would include events from Israelite history that happened long after the tower of Babel unless their ancestors were somehow connected with the Israelites). With those possibilities admitted, though, there might be a simpler explanation. Hawaii was discovered by the English in 1778 when Captain Cook arrived at the island, though there are some legends that suggest that survivors of shipwrecks may have visited the islands before that point on pgs. 94-99 here and pgs. 13-16 here. Those sources as well as pg. 591 in the article here mention the possibility that Juan Gaetano, a Spanish captain, may have mapped the islands in 1555 but pg. 16 in this source (referenced above) refers to an author by the name of “Dahlgren” who concluded in 1916 that there is no proof and only speculation to support the idea that the Spanish found the Hawaiian islands (see a review of Dahlgren’s work on pgs. 151-153 here. Whether outside influences arrived in Hawaii with Captain Cook or sometime earlier, there’s some possibility that the Hawaiian legends that parallel the history in the Bible weren’t independent memories, but legends influenced by the Bible. Some records of these legends were made by a man named Abraham Fornander. Fornander was a native of Sweden who came to live in Hawaii in the 1800s and published Hawaiian oral traditions, with the first volume released in 1878, 100 years after Cook discovered Hawaii according to this article. Fornander developed the theory that the Pacific Islands were populated by people emigrating over time from the mainland of Asia according to pg. 244 here where the author also notes that people apparently accepted Fornander’s accounts of early Hawaiian oral traditions. Not everyone, however, agrees that Fornander’s sources were authentic and in 1969 a paper written by Dorothy Barrère undermined their validity. I couldn’t find Barrère’s article available online, but review articles of it are available and they give some insight into her argument, including that the sources Fornander used altered Hawaiian history so that it meshed with the history found in Genesis and that Fornander picked parts of the legends that paralleled the history in the Bible most closely as mentioned here (see also another review article here). If Barrère’s argument is true, it would explain not only why the records of Hawaiian legends match so closely with the history in Genesis, but also why the stories also show parallels to later events in the Bible that took place after people dispersed from the tower of Babel. Kearsley, G. R., Mayan Genesis (2001) Yelsraek publishing references Fornander on pgs. 118-121 and 817 and notes that some have argued that the legends of Hawaii were influenced by Christians, but Kearsley dismisses this idea on the basis of the similarity of Hawaiian legends to those found in other places in the world. Opinions differ, and it’s possible that the Hawaiians did recall the early history of the world and that the legends from Hawaii are authentic. Perhaps they remembered more of the history of the Israelites in their legends because of some past contact with the Israelites either before they migrated out into the ocean, by later trade back and forth across the ocean, or because they had Israelite heritage somewhere in their ancestry. Those are possibilities, but perhaps not the simplest solution. Instead, Hawaiian memories that sound like the history in the Bible may be just an example of local legends that were modified or invented after contact with outsiders, and, as with so many oral legends, we don’t know what parts are original and which parts were changed.
  109. Among other Hawaiian legends, stories on pg. 26 here have humans being the descendants of “Bright Light” and “Pleasant Quiet.” Another reference refer to people descended from the daughter of chaos and “the King who Opens the Heavens” and some Hawaiian legends are suggested to have Hindu influence according to pgs. 20-21 and 98 here. For that author’s speculation on the pathway of migration between lands of the Pacific, see pg. 98 here.
  110. The island of Nias, not very far from the mainland of Asia (see here has legends that on the one hand sound like parallels to the history in Genesis, but on the other hand might not be authentic. For example, see pg. 15 here and pgs. 37-38 here where the author of that source suggests the tale is told in a similar repetitive poetic structure to what is seen in Hebrew, which could suggest Hebrew influence. Similarly one could find elements of Genesis 3 in the story of death coming from eating a certain food and the idea of a snake that lives forever. There could also be parallels to the history in Genesis in references to snakes, trees, and death, but the paper here argues Nias’ legends have been misinterpreted over time, including on pg. 179 which notes that the people on Nias didn’t have any idea of creation but thought the world had always existed, suggesting some versions of the local stories may have been modified due to the biases of the people who originally copied and interpreted them according to a Christian background. Whether or not this is true, it illustrates the point that if only recent documents exist regarding a legend, it is open for the accusation of being a late invention rather than an ancient history.
  111. In terms of whether the people living on the islands of the Pacific had contact with the mainland, on pg. 120 Kearsley, G. R., Mayan Genesis (2001) Yelsraek publishing notes that Christian missionaries found things like baptism and circumcision also occurring in Polynesia. These things are only recorded in the Bible as happening after the tower of Babel (see Genesis 17:9-10 for the first mention of circumcision in the Bible and John 1:19-28 for the first reference to baptism with the story of John the Baptist. John probably didn’t invent baptism. The Israelites were instructed to bathe on certain occasions as early as the time of Moses, see (Numbers 19 and pg. 2 here. While we can’t prove baptism was older than John the Baptist, some scholars suggest that to be the case along with the author of the above paper on pg. 8. In any case, if Polynesians were really performing baptisms and circumcisions and not because of some later Christian influence after European arrival, then it would suggest the local islanders either arrived on the islands after those practices were being performed on the mainland or that they continued to have contact with people who came from the mainland who told them about baptism and circumcision. In either case, the legends that sound like the history in Genesis might’ve been passed along as well making the local legends dependent on the mainland rather than independent memories of the early history of the world. I don’t know whether there really were baptisms and circumcisions or not. I didn’t delve into it. If there were, it adds more room for skepticism as we cannot tell what legends that sound like the history in Genesis are authentic memories of the islanders and what things might’ve been adopted later.
  112. To his credit, though Frazer dismisses the Bible as history (see earlier show note) he does admit that some stories are too widely spread to be likely from missionary influence (see pgs. 9-10 here). For comparing the geographic extent of the legends from this episode with the area of Asia, I traced a boundary around the Pacific from Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Sumatra, Australia, New Zealand, French Polynesia, Hawaii and back across the ocean to Japan on Google maps and compared it to the value for the area of Asia given here.
  113. Among the scattered islands and tribes of the Pacific Ocean, it’s possible that local legends of a Flood or creation or other events found in the history recorded in the first few chapters of Genesis only show up in there due to Christian, Islamic, or Hindu missionaries telling stories that locals later repeated to outsiders. If that is the case, though, why do those parallels between local legends and the history in Genesis stop after the events that happened at Babel? If everyone once lived together at Babel before scattering around the world (see Genesis 11:1-9](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+11%3A1-9&version=NKJV)), it’s plausible people handed the stories of what happened from creation to Babel down to their children so people all around the world would remember some version of it. Finding parallels to those early stories from the history in Genesis could be either signs of outside influence or evidence that people handed their family history down somewhat faithfully. Instead, the better measurement of the influence of outsiders on local legends would be looking to see if later stories from history show up, especially stories of Jesus and His sacrifice to save people from their sins, the stories I would expect Christian missionaries to emphasize. Those stories would be better evidence of locals having past contact with outsiders since the events all took place after people dispersed from Babel. On the other hand, if those later stories don’t show up, but there are only stories of the events in the first part of Genesis, I think it’s possible that the legends of creation and the Flood found among those native groups are genuine. In researching this episode, when I came across references to native stories that mention events from later in history than Babel, I assumed that was plausibly due to outside influence and left those stories out, though I can’t guarantee nothing slipped through. See earlier show notes for a discussion of the issues of legends in Hawaii. See also a show note with comments from Bill Cooper in Episode 17 that deals with this topic.
  114. In addition to the above reason to question some claims of outside influence on local legends, I wonder if we also overestimate how easily an outside story might be adopted into local lore. Any story a native wanted to add to their local oral traditions would’ve had to fit somewhere within their existing stories of history. Since someone’s history is closely tied to their identity, I would think that it would be challenging force a foreign story into local history since it would be allowing a foreigner to change one’s identity, and that it would be even harder to make that change to the history of an entire culture. This argument, which I also mentioned in a show note for Episode 20 is my speculation, and I can come up with reasons for the opposite viewpoint. It could be that the outside influence happened a few generations before it was written down, and the change spread so gradually through people’s family stories that no one remembered it was a change. Perhaps the people most likely to adopt the history of a foreigner were also the mostly likely to talk to foreigners later and have the history they recalled written down. Finally, since the foreigners who came to the lands across the Pacific showed up with better weapons and technology, a native tribe might adopt their history in order to curry favor with the new rulers of the land. There are reasons for and against the theory that native peoples would adopt the history of an outsider, but to suggest it happened frequently, quickly, or easily also tends to suggest that those people either had no history or placed very little value on it, something that I doubt was the case given how closely existing beliefs about history would likely be tied to a tribe’s identity, but this is just my speculation.
  115. For the argument that some of the flood legends found around the world might be due to tidal waves (, see pgs. 349-351 here (what we now call tsunamis used to be called tidal waves according to comment here. I would suggest that this idea gives little credit to island based natives who might well be able to tell the difference between a tsunami that comes and goes and a flood that takes time to rise and fall and I’d expect they were much better able to tell a tsunami was coming as they were likely attuned to the sea better than people today, but that is just my opinion.
  116. For the distance from Hawaii to California, see map here.

Previous: Grandfathers of History, part 5

View Details

Northeast of Babel, beyond the world’s largest mountains, an ancient culture has pieces of the early history of the world.

All the quotes from the Bible for the main story were were taken from the English Standard Version (see ESV copyright here) or the New King James Version. For the other sources, including commentaries, websites, or articles, you can find links and references in the show notes below in the order they appeared. If you have any questions, there’s a link to contact me at the bottom of the page.

Show notes:


  1. For a summary of the travels of Marco Polo, the years it took place, and the names of his father and uncle, see article here as well as McNeese, Tim “Polo, Marco.” The World Book Encyclopedia, 2020, vol. 15, World Book, Inc., 2019, pg. 648. (There is a discrepancy in those sources for the date of Marco Polo’s death. The World Book article notes that he died about 1304, but other sources generally note 1324. I assume 1324 to be the correct date.) As for the assignment the Mongol khan had given Niccolo and Maffeo and the unclear length of their previous trip to the Mongol empire, see pgs. 33-37 here that says (on pg. 36) that they’d been absent for more than 16 years and another summary on pg. vii-viii here that notes they’d only left in 1260, making the journey around 9 years long.
  2. For a general summary of the travels of the Polos, see pgs. xiv-xvi here. Piecing the trip together, that source notes the Kerman desert after “Ormuz” (which I assume is “Hormuz”) in Iran meaning they had already crossed the middle east from Acre. After that it mentions the Pamirs and Kashgar and specifically says it took a month to cross the Gobi desert. That source says they arrived at the khan’s summer garden, which is probably Shangdu a bit less than 200 miles north west of Beijing according to the map here. For the Polos arrival in 1275 at the khan’s court, see pg. xxvi here. For the distance from Venice to the general region the Polos visited to meet Kublai Khan, see here.
  3. For a discussion of the Ice Age from a Biblical perspective, see show notes for Episode 19.
  4. For Asia having grasslands and bushes, as well as selling of ivory to Europe and China, see article on mammoths here.
  5. For information on woolly rhinos, see here.
  6. For elk the size of moose, see article here which notes the size and that it was most abundant in Ireland but distributed throughout Europe and Asia.
  7. For the existence of cave lions in Asia during the Ice Age and their size relative to modern lions, see here.
  8. For the discovery of one “steppe wolf” in Siberian permafrost, see article here.
  9. For cave bears in Asia and their size relative to modern Polar bears and Kodiak bears, see here.
  10. As evidence that animals would kill people at times, see the comment in Genesis 9:5 where God tells Noah that He would demand a reckoning from animals for blood of humans that they shed. See also comments here.
  11. For a discussion of neanderthal physical features, see here. Interestingly, that article points out that humans and neanderthals interbred and were not different species, which fits with the understanding that they were just humans adapted differently. The article also references cold adaptation and possible issues due to “genetic isolation” which I assume means inbreeding in small populations.
  12. For the suggestion that the “Neanderthals” found by researchers had different appearances compared to modern-day humans due to inbreeding from small isolated populations, see here. There is also the suggestion in the papers here and here that the differences skeletons show could be due to changes that took place over the much longer lifespans of the first generations of people to live after the Flood (for lifespan lengths, see examples in Genesis 11:10-23.
  13. Strictly speaking, the word “neanderthal” comes from where bones were originally found, in the Neander valley in Germany (see here) but they also are found east of there in central Asia according to that source.    I use it more generically to refer to these “cavemen,” and considering that, in my view, all of the people or just groups of regular humans with different appearances, trying to draw distinctions is meaningless.
  14. For the remains of a mammoth found in the far north of Asia that shows signs of being attacked by man made weapons, see here. There are also lots of mammoth bones in Europe (see article here) but it is unclear if those bones show the same signs of having been hunted rather than simply used by humans.
  15. For some support that cave lions were killed by human weapons, see paper here which specifically connects the hunting to Neanderthals, though it isn’t clear if that is due to how long ago they assume the lion was killed (a timeline much longer than the one given in Genesis) or because of clear “neanderthal” remains found nearby that connected the cave lion remains to Neanderthals.
  16. For evidence that Neanderthals made things for other than practical purposes (i.e. decorations) see article here.
  17. Whether the cave bear bone found in Slovenia is a flute or not is debated. On pg. 34 of the article here mentions that it might be a flute and measurement of hole spacing allows for diatonic scale tones, but other tones were also possible. It also mentions that the holes might’ve been made by animals trying to get at the bone marrow with a detailed argument to that effect in the article here. The counter argument is offered on pg. 271 in the article here that suggests that the bone is a flute and notes a fifth hole where the thumb would be (also note that it refers to mousterians linking the flute with neanderthals). For me, whether the holes were made by humans or animals might not be easily settled, but that the spacing is right for making music tones makes the conclusion of an animal aimlessly chewing on it less likely. In Episode 10 I also mentioned that bone flutes had been found in China (see abstract here which mentions examples with six, seven, and eight holes and that one was tested) though the age of the potential bone flute in Slovenia is supposedly older than the artifacts from China. Specifically, the bone with flute-like holes from Slovenia is dated to more than 40,000 years ago according to pg. 550 of the article here while the bones from China are older than 5,700 BC according to the abstract here. Both of these dates are older than a Biblical timeline that dates creation to around 4000 BC (see Episode 2 and the show notes there) and, as such, I assume that the bones are old but the timescale is exaggerated and both were originally made sometime after the Flood. With that in mind, it is not clear, however, whether the Slovenian bone artifact is still older than the flutes found in China or whether they’re similar age but simply from different locations in the world.
  18. For Neanderthal Birch glue being made using a complex process, see articles here and here.
  19. As for the use of medical treatments among “Neanderthals” see here which notes most bones show bones that have recovered from even things like a broken leg suggesting at least communal care of injured members.
  20. Supporting the argument that Neanderthals and other cavemen were simply “men,” see articles here and here.
  21. For the possible links between Magog and the Scythians as well as the Irish record of Magog as one of their ancestors, see Episode 19.
  22. For the Scythians also being connected to Europe and Asia, and not Scotland only, see here.
  23. For the possible identification that Magog’s descendants could be the “Gagaia” discussed in a 1400s BC letter from Babylon to Egypt, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association (though that source notes that the identification is challenging). In another place it suggests regions south of Black Sea mention “Gyges,” which, if the same as the ruler of the Lydians, would put them in modern day Turkey (see entry here for Lydia and    “Magog” entry from Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers for the connection between Magog and Gyges).
  24. For suggestion that Magog’s descendants went into Mongolia and northern Europe and Asia, see note on Genesis 10:1-2 here. The entry here also references Josephus and Jerome who connect Magog to the Scythians or tribes who lived in the north by the Caspian sea.
  25. For the connection between Magog and the Tartars or Tatars, as well as the Scythians see note on Genesis 10:2, here and Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. For the home of the “Tatars” in Russia, see World Encyclopedia reference here. For the suggestion that modern Russians are connected to Magog, see note on Genesis 10:2, here. Given the size of Russia, it is unclear if this refers to those in western Russia toward Europe, or more in the Mongolia and Siberia regions.
  26. For the age of written records of Siberian and Mongolian religion, see pgs. 303-304 here, though pgs. 304-305 note that these early records are so limited we can’t get much from them.
  27. For the Mongol tradition of the flood, see pg 217 here.
  28. For the suggestion that words like “Satan” and “Christ” as well as dualism might be due to Christian or Iranian influence, which undermines the idea that stories from Siberia and Mongolia are old enough to be independent memories of the event in Genesis that date all the way back to the Tower of Babel, see pgs. 313 and 321-322 here and the mention of “Nestorian” which was a group of Christians (see here).
  29. For the story of the Lolos regarding Du-mu who survived a flood, see pgs. 163-164 here. For the location of the Lolos north of Vietnam, see pg. 98 in the article here which refers to Yunnan and the description of Yunnan’s location here.
  30. In trying to figure out the which branch of Noah’s family the Chinese are descended from, scholars mainly suggest either Ham or Japheth. To start, while it is meant as a short explanation for kids, the article here says that the Chinese are descendants of the Sinites mentioned in Genesis 10:17 as descendants of Ham, and that the “Han” ethnic group is a reference to “Ham.” In addition, the article references Isaiah 49:12) which talks of people from the north, west, and land of “Sinim” with an assumed connection between “Sinim” and China. Investigating these links, while Chinese are often referred to with the prefix “sino-“, and sources here link “Sinim” to China among other places, there is a problem with how old these connections are. First, regarding Isaiah’s mention of “Sinim,” Isaiah lived around 700 BC (see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1977). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 4, p. 88). Review and Herald Publishing Association.) but the people ruling Egypt didn’t know of “Sinim” as a name for China until 800 years later according to the note on Isaiah 49:12 here. The note on Isaiah 49:12 in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1977). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 4, p. 279). Review and Herald Publishing Association mentions that Chinese goods have been found in ancient Egypt which is evidence that goods could migrate that far in the ancient world, but states that there’s no link between “Sinim” and “Chin” until well after the time of Isaiah, instead mentioning Egypt as a place Isaiah was referring to in that passage. See also footnote 11 on pg. 404 here arguing that “Sinim” is pointing to the south or the southern part of Egypt and the note on Isaiah 49:12 here which argues against identifying “Sinim” as China. As far as word origins, using “sino-“    as a means of referring to China only dates back to the Greeks of around 2000 years ago and is thought to be a way to refer to the “Hs’in” or “Ch’in”, the first imperial dynasty of China who ruled around 200 BC (see pgs. 1448-1449 here and later show notes on Chinese history). If this etymology is accurate, then the “Ch’in” (also spelled “Qin”) dynasty is the source of the “sino-“ name rather than the “Sinite” descendants of Ham found in Genesis 10:17. Investigating the second point, that the “Han” ethnic group is a memory of the name “Ham,” opens up the question of where the “Han” people got their name. According to the article here the “Han” tribe came from the “Huaxia” ethnic group that formed between the 21st and 8th century BC with the Han dynasty only coming to rule China around 200 BC. While this isn’t conclusive that the “Han” isn’t a memory of “Ham,” it is perhaps odd that they didn’t use the “Han” name all along, but only developed that name later after being previously called the “Huaxia.” Beyond these links, one source also suggests the Hittite descendants of Ham might be connected to “Cathay,” (see pg. 256 here. Researching the origin of “Cathay” at the same etymology dictionary referenced above, pg. 251 links “Cathay” as a name for the Khitan Tartars, a group that ruled only about 1000 AD according to pg. 25 here (see also here though this doesn’t preclude “Khitan” being a further back link to the Hittites. Another argument for the Hittites being connected to the Chinese focuses on appearances and clothing. On pgs. 43-44 of the paper written in 1889 here it suggests the Egyptian depictions of the Hittites are reminiscent of Chinese appearance, though I couldn’t find more recent arguments supporting that link. Moving on from Ham, there is a traditional Arabic belief that the Chinese are descended from Japheth. An Arabic tradition, stated on pg. 409 here claims Japheth was the father of the Chinese, though it also says Arabic traditions make Ham the father of the Europeans, which does not appear to be the case (see Episode 18 and Episode 19). Other Arabic writers try to connect China to Japheth and by “Amur” which the author speculates is “Gomer” on 406 here). Beyond this, the arguments in favor of Japheth are more logic and theology that archeology. First, for logic, if Japheth’s descendants are traced up into Central Asia around the Black Sea (see the last couple of episodes) and into India (see earlier in this episode) with speculation that Japheth’s son Magog went further up into Asia (see earlier in this episode) I would think it most likely that China would also be colonized by Japheth’s descendants. Second, regarding theology, in Genesis 9:27 Noah blesses Japheth and asks that God “enlarge” him. While this enlarging doesn’t specifically reference land, it is taken that way here with several commentators, including Benson, Barnes, Gill, and Poole suggesting Japheth’s descendants extended into Asia and possibly America as well. If, on the other hand, Ham’s descendants populated China, this blessing makes less sense as it is Ham who had a large growth of territory, unless Ham’s descendants only populated China and the rest of Asia and the Americas was still settled by Japheth’s children. In summary, while is is possible the first settlers in China might’ve been descendants of Ham, I think it is more plausible that Japheth was their forefather. For my earlier discussion of the Sinites settling in the modern Middle East, see Episode 17.
  31. For the Chinese not claiming to be descended from any supernatural source, see pg. 6 here where author notes that it is surprising that the Chinese haven’t really shown any interest in where their people originally came from.
  32. One possible clue regarding the ancestry of the Chinese comes from the Maio people who live in southeast Asia. You can find their story here. The oral history traces their genealogy back to Japheth. Over the years, they resisted integration with the Chinese (though one branch of the Maio did integrate with them) and they maintained the idea that the Chinese were a different people. On the basis of the Maio claiming to be descendants of Japheth and of a different family than the Chinese, Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 242). Appendix 12. Kindle Edition appears to argue that the Chinese are not descended from Japheth. In my estimation, assuming the Maio stories are accurate, there are two possible explanations for this history. First, the descendants of Ham, perhaps the Sinites, did move from the Middle East into China and force out the previous inhabitants who were descendants of Japheth making them find other places to settle, and perhaps some of these people are the Maio. Alternatively, the Maio and Chinese are two branches of Japheth’s descendants that split from one another early in history and then came back into contact later, with the Maio retaining their genealogical history and the Chinese family tree being a mystery, but this is my speculation.
  33. I wouldn’t advice using my pronunciations of Chinese names and places for reference. I’m confident at least one name is right, but the rest are a best guess.
  34. The article here traces history in China back much further than a Biblical timeline. If the Flood was worldwide, as Genesis states (see Genesis 7), then the history of China can only begin after the Flood, or after 2349 BC according to Ussher, James (2006-11-01). The Annals of the World (Kindle Locations 502-503). Master Books. Kindle Edition. As such, I assume    some of the legends and characters recalled in China’s historical stories overlapped or are fictional or the dates of Chinese history are incorrect and inflated further into the past than really took place, just like the Babylonian or Egyptian history discussed in Episode 17. In short, I assume the history of these ancient cultures, if properly understood, would align with the timeline of history recorded in the Bible.
  35. When researching these stories of people who settled the world after leaving Babel, the age of the legends is important. Christianity spread around the world in the last 2000 years, so if a story sounds like something from the history in Genesis, there’s a chance it is the history in Genesis being echoed back by some tribe or culture that heard the story sometime in the last 2000 years. For oral traditions, there’s no good way to prove that their stories are older than 2000 years (and therefore older than Christian influence) but if written records are older than 2000 years, it at least makes them immune to the claim that the history in them came from Christian missionaries. In researching the age of legends, pg. 19 here suggests that the early legends in China come from around 200-400 BC, though those aren’t necessarily the earliest version of the story. It goes on to say (on pg. 26) that the best sources are “The Songs of Ch’u” from around the 300s BC and (on pg. 37) the “Classic of Mountains and Seas” from the 200s BC to before 100 AD. The Han dynasty (200s BC to 200s AD) tried to record and manage all the legends according to pg. 54 here. Legends from the early Han and older are the most useful as they are old enough that they largely avoid the claim of Christian influence since Christianity was not likely to have spread or embedded itself into Chinese traditions at such an early date.
  36. For a long time scholars have known that the Chou (also spelled “Zhou”) dynasty existed, it wasn’t until the 1900s that researchers could prove the Shang was a real dynasty as well according to pg. 20 here which also states that, as of publication in 1968, the Hsia dynasty (also spelled “Xia”) were still legendary. For a note that the Shang dynasty of China is the first with evidence they really existed, and that the dynasty ended around 1100 BC, see here.
  37. For an overview of the Zhou dynasty (also spelled “Chou”) from their conquering of the Shang dynasty, the separation of the kingdom into different regions, and those regions eventually overthrowing the dynasty itself with the Qin next taking control, see here and Hardy, Grant “Zhou dynasty.” The World Book Encyclopedia, 2020, vol. 21, World Book, Inc., 2019, pg. 590. For the rise of the Qin dynasty (pronounced “Chin,” according to this source) see article here that mentions the Qin being one of the several states that eventually conquered the others and the article here that mentions “Qin” became the basis for the modern name “China.”
  38. For the first emperor of the Qin dynasty changing government structure and standardizing other things, ordering the burning of books with some exceptions, and killing scholars for disagreeing see here. That source also notes that purging of history started after a party in 213 BC, meaning it was only 3 years before the first emperor’s death in 210, though it is unclear if the purge continued to the end of the dynasty or not. Books on divination were exempted from destruction according to the source above with the definition of divination found here. In addition, see pgs. 36-40 here which appears to suggest a broader category of books were exempt than the very specific list mentioned in the earlier source above and notes that that certain important scholars were allowed to keep their books but that over 400 scholars were killed for hiding books. It also states specifically that this burning is at least somewhat to blame for why we don’t have much early Chinese legend material. That source attributes the story of the book burning to “Ssu-ma Chhien” who lived around 100 BC according to the article here.
  39. For the Qin dynasty only lasting for 4 years after the first emperor died, see his reign ending in 210 BC here and the Han dynasty starting in 206 BC here. The first article claims that it only lasted 3 years after the first emperor’s death, but it could be that there was a year of chaos before the Han took control or that the first emperor of the Qin died toward the end of the year 210 BC and the Han took power toward the start of the year later on leaving only about a 3 year gap, but that is my speculation.
  40. For the piecing of history back together taking place under the Han dynasty, see pg. 40 here. For the suggestion that Han scholars’ bias came through in the materials they preserved, see pg. 36 at the same source.
  41. Just like the other mythology I’ve researched and talked about in earlier episodes, I’m an amateur when it comes to Chinese legends, and there are a number of challenges. To begin with, there are a few different classical works in Chinese with names that risk getting confused with one another. For example, the Shujing is an ancient classical work from the 300s BC (though with some parts being forgeries) while the Shiji is a book on history written around 200 years later. In addition to the similarity of names, there’s the question of whether the records we have are original or if they have been updated over time, allowing later ideas to get mixed in to the older stories. The Liji was written (supposedly) by Confucius but then updated around 500 years later by other authors. Beyond that, phrases in scholarly works such as “in one version of..” make it clear that multiple versions of a story exist (see start of pg. 119 here for example), and it’s challenging to discover which is the oldest or most original version. Beyond this, everything I read comes from a translation, and all translations risk including the translator’s own opinions or bias. Scholars themselves also have different opinions when they summarize the work. One source I used is here which is part of a series of books telling the mythology of different cultures around the world. In the note on pg. 3 in that source, the author says that the book does not include any legends which look like they came from non-native Chinese sources and that it is focused on written records not oral traditions. The explanation of Chinese beliefs and legends, however, is heavily criticized in the paper here which appears to offer valid complaints about source and accuracy. That said, I have given the sources I used in the show notes below for you to investigate and validate whether I or they accurately summarize the legends in question. For a list of ancient Chinese works, see pgs. 44-45 here.
  42. There are several different versions of creation in Chinese lore according to pgs. 25, 27, and 28 here, including examples from the 200s BC, the 100s BC, and others from later centuries. For the reference to a Chinese creation story from around the mid-200s BC or earlier that mentions no creator but does reference a “’formless expanse’” see pg. 27 here and note that the source material is said to be the late Chou dynasty which ended in 256 BC. Another story from pg. 28 at the same source mentions a newly discovered story (as of 1999) that is believed to go back to the 300s BC. That story includes the idea of everything being empty, wet, and dim. It also says that there was not yet darkness and light, which I assume means there was no division between light and dark, details that are very similar to the description at the start of Genesis 1. Later, on pgs. 31-32 are the passages mentioned above.
  43. Beyond the descriptions of the universe before creation from the 300s BC, there’s also a story from the 100s BC found in the Huai-nan Tzu (also spelled “Huainanzi”) which describes Yin and Yang separating out of mist on pgs. 28-29 here and translated on pg. 32 at that source. See later show note for more about the Huainanzi.
  44. A popular Chinese legend of creation has a being named “P’an Ku” (spelled various ways) coming out of chaos (pg. 30 here), but this legend only shows up in the 200s AD an onward according to pg. 46 here and pg. 407, footnote 34 here. Another source, on pg. 29 (and referencing a different author) here suggests the story might’ve come from the people around Tibet.
  45. There is also the story of “Yu-ti” as a creator who modeled people out of clay on pg. 104 here but I could not find the age of this legend. The book claims that sacrifices at the altar of heaven were made to Yu-ti. This Yu-ti (spelled “Yu-di”) is referenced on pg. 63 here as someone who was generated out of the Song or Tang dynasties trying to bring order to their confused list of gods.
  46. The “Classic of Mountains and Seas” is also known as the “Shan Hai Ching” according to pg. 41 here with a discussion of the age of the work in the pages following. The article here dates the text to the 200s BC to 100 AD while pg. 58 here declares it to be be from the first century BC at the latest.    A translation of the “Classic of Mountains and Seas” can be found here with pg. xxxviii and thereafter discussing the age of the original text and generally settling on the same range as given above. Pg. xlix and those following in that source also states that the current translation was made from more recent copies and that existing copies of the text only go back to 1180 AD (see pg. 1 in that source). The source also notes, on pg. xliii, what the issues were with existing translations of the book. According to pg. 183-184 here, the section in the Classic of Mountains and Seas that discusses Khun-lun was written in the 100s BC. The book has lots of details that are fantastic and mythical. I have cherry picked details which sound like Eden, but that doesn’t mean all of it sounds that way.
  47. For an overview of the legend of Khun-lun (also spelled “Kunlun”), the mountain to the far west in Chinese lore, see pgs. 74-75 here which mentions Khun-lun as a mountain, its location to the furthest west, water that could make you live forever, and the belief that it was the source of the Yellow river. That author also mentions four rivers flowing to different parts of the world as well as their opinion that this was just evidence of Indian beliefs about the mountain “Sumeru” getting mixed in. Genesis mentions four rivers coming from the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2:10-14 but the number of rivers coming from Khun-lun varies. On pg. 140 of text of the Classic of Mountains and Seas found here (see earlier show note for description of that source) it mentions at least six rivers including Scarlet, Great, Wideflow, Black, Weak, and Green, though the rivers do specifically come from the four corners (southeast, northeast, northwest, southwest) of Khun-lun. That list doesn’t include the Yellow river, but the comment on pg. 69 here affirms that the Yellow river was thought to come from Khun-lun while the comment on pg. 219 here notes that the “weak” river went around the bottom of the mountain. Another description of the rivers, found on pgs. 161-162 here mentions four rivers coming from the mountain and names    them the Yellow, Red, Yang, and Black. The Huainanzi (see later show note for more details on that source) also mentions four rivers and names them Yellow, Vermilion, Weakwater, and Yang and also says they come form the four corners of the mountain (see pgs. 156-157 here). For the “Lord of the sky” using Khun-lun as his home on Earth, see pg. 75 here.    For Khun-lun being known as “Great God’s City on Earth Below,” see pg. 245 here from a translation of the “Classic of Mountains and Seas” (see earlier show note for description of that record). For the Yellow river as a major waterway in China, see article here.
  48. For the Khun-lun peaches that let people live forever, see pg. 104 here which describes the peaches as healing illnesses and giving immortality if mixed with the ashes of a mulberry tree (see also the article here).
  49. The “Queen Mother of the West” (spelled as both “Xiwangmu” here and “Hsi Wang Mu” in other references below) who is associated with the peaches of immortality wasn’t originally part of the legend of Khun-lun but began as a monster who lived on a nearby mountain and was in charge of illnesses whose story later changed so she took charge of the peaches of immortality that were only available once every six thousand years according to pg. 78-79 here. That source references the “Classic of Mountains and Seas” (see earlier show note for description of that record) as the source of its information. Hsi Wang Mu is mentioned in the appendix to the Classic of Mountains and Seas on pg. 249 here with the translations of specific references to the “Queen Mother of the West” found on pgs. 24, 145, and 176. The Queen Mother of the West’s late arrival in relation to the peaches of immortality is supported by comments on pg. 173-174 here which also notes that that her section of the story is from the 200s BC and that the peaches ripened every 3000 years.    As far back as the 1200s BC there is mention of a “west Mother” on the oracle bones though the “queen” element only arrived in the 300s BC according to pg. 171 here. There was also mention on pg. 56 here of a partner to the Queen Mother of the West, though I didn’t see that link made elsewhere. That article does support, on pg. 57, that it was a 6000 year peach ripening period.
  50. For the mention of every kind of animal living on Khun-lun, see pg. 176 here in the Classic of Mountains and Seas.
  51. The description of the trees found in Khun-lun comes from the translation of the “Classic of Mountains and Seas” described in earlier show notes (see there for background and date of composition of that record). The trees in question are mentioned on pgs. 140-141 here. From the description and use of “the” is is unclear if there was one of each type of tree that is mentioned, or if the translation is referring to a species of tree and there might be more than one of each. The start of pg. 140 describes the “tree-barley” that stood on the peak of Khun-lun with a specific description of its height and width and the other description of the trees puts them specifically to the north of the “Openbright” animal mentioned in another show note, which might suggest that each of the trees mentioned is singular rather than a species. This conclusion is supported by the same authors description in a different book where pg. 183 here mentions twelve special trees, suggesting they are individual rather than species trees. That same source on pg. 185 (again by the same author as the translation of the Classic of Mountains and Seas) translates a couple things differently in the passage referring to “Sweet Water” instead of “sweet-water tree” that was added by the author in the translation, and calling the “wisdom tree” the “Wise Man tree.” Another reference to water and trees that gave eternal life is found in the description of Khun-lun on pgs. 161-162 here
  52. For other legends of plants that gave eternal life, legends in China claim there were three islands where a plant of immortality grew but the ships sent there were all lost in a storm according to pg. 115 here. In addition, other substances in Chinese lore gave immortality including certain water sources, trees, grasses, drugs, and other things besides according to pg. 110 here
  53. In researching ancient Chinese legends, I came across a quote from a presentation made in 1873 on pg. 238 here that suggests the Chinese had a legend of the original state of the world as a perfect and happy place without sadness or dishonesty. Going to the referenced author for that quote (though not the same edition of the book, as the page number is different) yields pg. 337 here where the statements on Chinese legends are found in the second part of a book written in 1745. That source references “ancient commentaries on the book Yking, i.e. the book of Changes,” which is likely a reference to the “Yijing,” a Chinese classic called “Book of Changes” dating back to 1100s BC with commentaries being written on it later, but still before 200 BC (see here). There is an English translation of the Yijing, called the “I-ching” in that case, made by James Legge, an authority on Chinese to English translations (see pg. 377 here). To begin with, the quote in question does not seem to appear in the Yijing itself (at least my search didn’t find it) and the reference does point to “ancient commentaries” which may or may not exist in English. Even if commentaries are the source, the Yijing was originally used to tell the future so it might not be an ideal source for concrete history. Searching further for the source of Ramsay’s quotes, I came across pg. 241 here which points to “Duhald’s Hist. of China, in his Abstract on the Chinese Classicks.” This appears to be a reference to Jean Baptiste Duhalde who collected stories and published a series of four books on the history of China in the 1700s (see pg. 209 here for Duhalde’s influence on European understanding of China). Duhalde’s (also spelled “Du Halde”) four volume work can be found online (see here or here for volume 1, here or here for volume 2, here or here for volume 3, and here or here for volume 4). I searched all of them for keywords from the quotes in question, but without much success. Of the tables of contents in each book, volume 3 looked to have the most promise. In that volume, the closest I could find to the above quotes about a once “perfect” world in ancient Chinese writings were statements attributed to an unknown "modern" philosopher. After starting on pg. 259 here with an explanation that, "Before the Heavens and the Earth were yet formed, there was nothing but a confus'd Chaos in the midst of an immense Void" the philosopher describes the formation of the earth and sun, moon, and stars then says (pg. 262), "The Production of Mankind and other Beings came afterwards, and all the Universe was then in a state of perfection: In short all that one can imagine of what is lively, spiritual and excellent in the Heavens and the Earth, becoming united and joining together in the highest degree of Perfection possible, has given a wonderful Birth to these extraordinary Men, who in their turn have endeavored after the Exaltation of Nature." It doesn't match the quote given by Ramsay, but it does offer the thought of an originally perfect universe, though again, this is in a section of the book referring to the opinions of a "modern" Chinese philosopher, so clearly not a reference to an ancient written record. I also looked through the later sections in the book summarizing the Chinese “classics” (as that appears to be the reference the earlier work pointed to) but without success. The starting section in volume 3 about Chinese religion references things learned in the Chinese classics (see starting pg. 16). In that part the author describes the “Supreme Being” named “Chang ti” with attributes that match the description of God found in the Bible. This is the closest I came to the quotes used by Ramsay (and later Titcomb from Ramsay) that at least once source says came from Duhalde. I never found the precise quotes used, but there are still a couple things to note. First, while I cannot tell what the source was for Ramsay’s quote, given the limited amount of information available on China in the 1700s, that they originally came from Duhalde or other works from around the same area is my best guess. Second, while the quote Ramsay used could be right, his information comes early in the history of Europeans trying to understand China, so it is possible that Duhalde (or whoever compiled that quote) was misunderstanding the material and summarizing it inaccurately and it has disappeared from research as better translations corrected the mistake in the years since then. In fact, in Titcomb’s presentation, where this search started, a record of the discussion shows the idea of a “supreme Monarch of the Universe” was challenged (see pg. 263 here) with the editor seeking out the advice of James Legge to see if Chinese works made such a claim (see footnote on that page which continues to the next page), and while both the editor and Legge suggested the general idea of China possibly having a traditional memory of the pre-Flood world was possible, Legge said that the “Shoo” (I assume Shuking) did not place any blame on people for the Flood.
  54. Later in his comments, Titcomb mentions the “Liki” book (see pg. 238 here). This too, as in the above show note, is mentioned by Ramsay on pg. 338 here. The “Liki” book in question is probably the “Liji,” an ancient Chinese book meaning “Record of Rites” supposedly put together by Confucius who lived around 500 BC though it was updated around 500 years later (see here). There are at least a couple of English copies of the Liji such as here (called “Li chi”) and here (called “Li Ki”) though both are using translations by the same James Legge mentioned earlier (see above show note) with the same page numbers. I hunted in this book for the quote in question but did not find it. There are references to a “supreme” god on pgs. 233 and 301 either in the text or a footnote (see here). I also found a reference there of a story where a roughly 100 year old blind disciple of Confucius told a leader of a province around 407 BC (see footnote 3 on pg. 116) about what music was at that time and what it used to be. In that passage (pg. 118 here) the disciple of Confucius says, “In antiquity, Heaven and Earth acted according to their several natures, and the four seasons were what they ought to be. The people were virtuous, and all the cereals produced abundantly. There were no fevers or other diseases, and no apparitions or other prodigies. This was what we call "the period of great order." After this arose the sages, and set forth the duties between father and son, and between ruler and subject, for the guidance of society. When these guiding rules were thus correctly adjusted, all under heaven, there was a great [tranquility]…” The story discusses the invention of the 5 note scale and good music as contrasted with wild and violent music that shouldn’t be used for sacrifices (see pg. 119). There is no footnote on that page, so it is only my speculation that this might be a reference to a past golden age, though the entire conversation appears to take place in the context of good and bad music.
  55. While it’s speculative on my part, there is also a reference in the description of Khun-lun on pgs. 184-185 here creatures who had a snake on their head, one on their chest, and one they were walking on which, to me, could echo the imagery from Genesis 3:15 and be a memory, in some foggy way, of God’s promise of a Savior (see Episode 6).
  56. The descriptions of the creature protecting of Khun-lun are the same in a couple of sources, but some details of what it is doing differ. The reference on pg. 75 here describes it as having a tiger’s body and nine human heads and acting as a guard for the “door of light” that points east. Elsewhere, the appendix to the translation of the “Classic of Mountains and Seas” (see full description of that classic in earlier show note) uses the word “Openbright” as the name of the creature on pg. 245 here who is responsible for guarding a specific jewel tree, and goes on (on pg. 246) to describe the animal as pointing east. Going to the translation, pgs. 140-141 in the text where this creature is described, Khun-lun (called “Waste of Offspringline,” see pg. 245 that book in the appendix for the correlation between those names and with “Khun-lun” spelled “K’un-lun Hsu”) is said to have four sides, each with nine openings and each opening having a separate “Openbright” animal protecting it, though later on the page each of the Openbright animals’ faces east, apparently regardless of which side of the mountain they are on. From these two descriptions, I think the “door of light” reference in the summary of the story is related to the “Openbright” name used in the translation, but that is only my best guess. As for the number of guardian animals, the translations specifically mention lots of gates each with its own animal, but then for every face to point east, the animals on the west side would be looking into Khun-lun which doesn’t make much sense to me. Combine that with the reference at the end of pg. 140 and start of pg. 141 which orient other aspects of Khun-lun to the west, north, east, and south of “the Openbright” animal and it makes it sound as though there is one animal at the center of Khun-lun and rather than many surrounding the mountain. I don’t have a good explanation for this confused description. See also pgs. 183-185 here for other descriptions of this passage.
  57. In the Garden of Eden, the fruit of the Tree of Life let people live forever (see Genesis 3:22-24) while the the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil brought death, though the serpent claimed those who ate it wouldn’t die (see Genesis 3:1-6 and Genesis 3:19 and Genesis 5:5). For the gate to the Garden of Eden being on the east side, see Genesis 3:23-24. For a discussion of ancient memories of guardians blocking access that could be a memory of the “cherubim” Genesis mentions, see Episode 7.
  58. It is my speculation that links the Khun-lun mountain to memories of the Tower of Babel, but it is described as being both very tall and sunk very deep into the earth on pg. 74 here. Furthermore, on pgs. 161-162 here Khun-lun is described as a “sky ladder” that connected earth with heaven (see also pg. 232 here for more on “sky ladders”) and let humans and gods go back and forth.    Regarding Khun-lun. The Huainanzi from around 100 BC (see later show note discussing the Huainanzi and other dates) describes Khun-lun as a sky ladder and names its different levels. It cites a passage from the Huainanzi chapter 4 (see pgs. 156-157 here) though the translation for that section says that one has to climb, “to a height double that of the Kunlun mountains” to get to the first level and then quadruple the height to get to the second level and eight times the height to get to heaven, making it unclear if these are different levels on a certain mountain or different mountains. Regardless, it is interesting that the second level is called “Hanging garden” and makes me wonder about the connection between Khun-lun and memories of Eden. Even so, Khun-lun isn’t the only sky ladder, there are others including mountains, trees, and rainbows. One story, of unknown age, says that a certain ladder was broken when the head god moved the sky further away to stop humans from coming to heaven after a young man distracted the water goddess causing a flood and killing all the humans on Earth such that they had to be recreated from seeds (for that story and other sky ladder details, see pgs. 205-206 here).
  59. While I use the name “Nu kua” in this episode (which is used on pg. 163 here) the being in question also goes by other spellings including “Nu Gua” here and “Nu wa” here.
  60. For the earliest legends linked to Nu kua being from the 300s BC, see comment on pgs. 163-164 here that refers to the “Questions of Heaven,” a document from the 300s BC according to pg. 26 in that source. That source also notes that Nu-kua comes up in the Classic of Mountains and Seas (see earlier show note) and the “Huai-nan Tzu,” a book written around 140 BC as noted on pg. 28 here and was influenced by Taoism.
  61. The image of Nu kua with a snake-like lower body comes from the Han dynasty according to pg. 45 here which would put the reference in the last years BC or the first years AD. Three is also mention of her on pg. 55 here that speculates that Nu Kua is probably a memory of Shang era worship of snake-women or dragons.
  62. For the comment that Nu kua is assumed to be a woman because of the symbols in her name but that some early traditions refer to Nu kua as a man, see pg. 31 here and Nelson, E.R., Broadberry, R.E. (1997) God’s Promise to the Chinese. (pg. 113). In an interesting theory, Kearsley, G. R., Mayan Genesis (2001) Yelsraek publishing (pg. 125) suggests that Nu kua is really a reference to “Nu” and his sister “Kua” though I cannot say whether that idea is supportable. On pg. 34 here it mentions that Nu kua’s female identity was emphasized in the BC Han period and that is when she was connected to Fuxi (spelled “Fu Hsi,” see later show note) and marriage traditions.
  63. For the age of the story of Nu kua creating people from mud, see pg. 56 here that refers to a text from the Han dynasty but doesn’t say whether it was from the BC or AD time period. In another source, pg. 54 here points to it being a legend from the 100s AD. See also the discussion on pg. 33 here that Nu kua’s legend of creation is from around 200 AD, still older than the one about P’an Ku, but not as old as the idea humans were made from “pure vapor” (see earlier show notes).
  64. For the ancient Chinese image of the world as land with a dome held up by columns, see pg. 24 here. The author goes on to suggest that this is similar to the ancient Egyptian understanding and speculates that it could be due to contact between Egypt and China.
  65. The long quote of the story of Nu kua patching a hole in the sky and stopping a flood is found on pgs. 224-225 here (another translation of the same passage is found on pgs. 164-165 here). The source for the is a book called the “Huainanzi” that was written around 139 BC (see pg. 1 here or 150 BC according to pg. 55 here. The translator of the passage about Nu kua patching the sky adds a number of footnotes including that the “black dragon” was the responsible for the floods (though it is unclear to me if this is a real being or a metaphorical reference) and that “Ji province” was the central part of the world (see reference to pg. 154 in that book). The story of Nu kua is also summarized on pgs. 31-32 here. As for influence on the story, it is suggestion on pgs. 70-71 here that the second part of this tale has concepts of Taoist philosophy and, as such, might not be original. For other details, the cause of the hole in the sky that Nu kua repaired is not entirely clear. One version mentions a rebel leader being defeated by Nu kua with the rebel then hitting his head against a pillar and ripping a hole in the sky, causing a flood and killing most everyone but Nu kua and those with her (see pgs. 81-82 here) while a footnote on pg. 224 at the earlier source above suggests that Gong Gong caused the damage Nu kua repaired. The story of Gong Gong is also mentioned on pgs. 124-125 here which notes that the it originally shows up    in the “Warring States” era (something dated to 400s-200s BC according to article here) but got more detail during the Han era. That source goes on to give other details and background including the suggestion that the story of Gong Gong and Nu kua were originally separate and only connected to one another later on, an idea that might come from pg. 69 here (one of that source’s references) where the author suggests that it was a different legend mixed into the Nu kua story by Han scholars since the damage caused by Kung Kung (alternate spelling of Gong Gong) was never fixed. See also pgs. 85-86 here and pgs. 27 and 98-99 here. See also pg. 122 in Kearsley, G. R., Mayan Genesis (2001) Yelsraek publishing.
  66. For the idea of a parallel between the five colored stones and the rainbow in Genesis, see pg. 115 in    Nelson, E.R., Broadberry, R.E. (1997) God’s Promise to the Chinese. For the suggestion that the five colored stones were symbols of the “Five Phases” see footnote 61 on pg. 224 here which refers to the end of chapter 4 in that book that mentions yellow, bluegreen, vermilion, white, and black heavens with various mythological details associated with those heavens (see pgs. 170-171). Pg. 68 here points out that there was a system of “fives” in general including five elements, seasons, and directions.
  67. The note on Genesis 9:13, here suggests that rainbows were considered bad omens by the Chinese.
  68. There are other flood stories in Chinese history besides the story of Nu kua as discussed on pgs. 79-83 here or pg. 87 here with the comment on pg. 215 here arguing that the story of Yao sounded more like the flooding of the Yellow river and not a worldwide event. To me, the stories of local floods could be either regular river flooding, or the draining of a waterlogged landscape in the first few hundred years after the worldwide Flood described in Genesis, though that is only my speculation. It is emphasized, however, that flooding wasn’t a punishment from god or evidence of people disobeying god (see pg. 83 here) whereas in Genesis people doing evil was the cause of the Flood (see Genesis 6).
  69. Beyond Nu kua, another possible memory of people who lived before the Flood comes up in stories of Fuxi. Fuxi (also spelled “Fu Hsi” and “Fo-hi”) is a major character in Chinese mythology (see pg. 118 here), though it’s difficult to know which parts of the legends about him are ancient and which pieces might have only been added on later. Early references to Fuxi, where he’s mentioned as the first god in sources from the Zhou dynasty (also known as “Chou”) are older than 200 BC according to pg. 44 here. That source goes on to mention, however, that Fuxi was not a famous character until the Han dynasty and that he doesn’t come up in the “Classic of Mountains and Seas,” the very old work that describes Khun-lun (see earlier show note) among other things. In the same source (here) on pg. 46 there is a passage from the Han era (see explanation of that passage on pg. 45) that Fuxi used ropes with knots to make nets for hunting and fishing. Since the Han dynasty spans the BC to AD transition, it is unclear if this reference comes from the last years BC or the first years AD. Furthermore, Fuxi is shown as part snake in images from the Han era (again, unclear if the BC or AD part of that dynasty) as mentioned on pg. 44 at the above source. Elsewhere, there are a variety of other sources that offer information about Fuxi, including pg. 29-30 here (written in 1916), though that reference suggests Fuxi was also known as “T’ai Hao,” a name that pg. 44 here says was linked to Fuxi during the Han times but was an separate god from Fuxi prior to that. It doesn’t say when during the Han era the Fuxi and T’ai Hao became synonymous, only that it was present by 32-92 AD from the source cited. That said, since pg. 29-30 (cited above) refers to Fuxi as someone also known as “T’ai-Hao,” other details it offers may also be from later legends, including that Fuxi’s was born through a miracle and (later on pg. 30) that he invented marriage and limited it to people who had different last names as well as finding iron and offering sacrifices to “Heaven” on an altar outside. Similarly, in another source, on pg. 119 here it says that Fuxi’s birth was a miracle that came about after his mother stepped in a large footprint and became pregnant, and that Fuxi had, at least initially, a man’s head but a snake’s body and only turned into a human over time, but it doesn’t give a reference for where those details of Fuxi come from and whether they are early memories of Fuxi or later inventions. If all these elements come from an early date, then Fuxi is the story of a man who is remembered as a snake, who invented things, made rules about marriage, and presented sacrifices on an altar outside. Combine this with the reference from the note on Genesis 9:17, here that Fuxi was born surrounded by a rainbow, and it is not surprising to find the suggestion of a link between Fuxi and Noah, a old idea presented at least as far back as 1818 in a comment on pg. 140 here (and also mentioned on pgs. 238-239 here). This connection between    Fuxi and Noah is perhaps bolstered by some of Fuxi’s names, such as “silent sacrificial victim” and “prostrate breath” noted on pg. 45 here that might be a memory of Noah’s post-Flood offering, with other names listed in that source including “roasted sacrificial victim” and “hidden play” with the last, unless it is a reference to Noah’s drunkenness in Genesis 9:18-28 doesn’t sound like an obvious reference to the story of Noah, and once again, it’s not clear how old these names are. Recognizing that, the only confident references to elements of the Fuxi legend from early Chinese history were a memory of him as the first god, the inventor of nets, and that part of his body was snakelike, which, while curious, is perhaps not enough to reliably link stories about him to memories of Noah or other pre-Flood people. See also mention of past speculation that Fuxi and Adam were the same on pg. 407 here. For more on the connection between Nu kua and Fuxi, see pgs. 56 and 86 here and pg. 55    here which claims the two were connected later on in the Han era. On pg. 31 here it claims Nu kua became ruler after Fuxi, pointing to the “Shih Chi” as it’s source, a reference I assume is to the Shiji written around 85 BC. In another place, on pg. 11 here it says that Fuxi or Fuxi and Nu kua were the first of the three rulers.
  70. The myths and legends in China have such tantalizing details in places that it’s tempting to keep speculating on connections between people in Chinese lore and the history and characters described in Genesis. This includes “Shennong” who is known as the earthly emperor to distinguish him from Fuxi the “heavenly emperor.” Shennong was supposedly born on a mountain, was eight feet seven inches in height and had the body of man with the head of a bull, grew up in a few days, studied what plants people could eat, and lived to be 168 years old before becoming immortal (see pgs. 30-31 here). I could imagine tying Shennong to Cain, the farmer, or to Noah, who grew grapes, but we just don’t have enough information to do more than speculate.
  71. As for the reliability of Han dynasty stories, one scholar considers the Zhou to offer good history, but the Han stories to have elements of Bhuddism and Taoism mixed in according to pg. 110 in Nelson, E.R., Broadberry, R.E. (1997) God’s Promise to the Chinese. (pg. 11).
  72. I only gave the legends of Nu kua that came from the earlier parts of history, the Chou and Han dynasties. There is also another segment of legends that come from the 800s AD, during the Tang dynasty, that adds other information including that Nu kua and her brother Fuxi were the only survivors of a flood, lived on mount Khun-lun, were convinced to marry by smoke gathering together rather than dispersing from two separate fires, and became the parents of mankind. For more see pgs. 34 and 203 here as well as later shownote about her brother Fuxi and pgs. 161-163 here
  73. Sometimes a work called the “Lieh Tzu" by “Liezi” is referenced as a source for Chinese legends from around the 300s BC (see for instance pg. 81 here), but scholars now think this is a forgery from the 300s AD according to pg. 185 here. For reference to what is said in the Lieh Tzu see pg. 86 here.
  74. The sixth issue of the Philosophical Journal of Great Britain, also known as the Victoria Institute, from 1873 mentions the idea that the Chinese symbol for “large ship” is a combination of symbols for “boat,” the number eight, and a mouth (meaning people) on pg. 239 here. That page points back to pg. 9 of a book here which was written in 1774 and quotes there from a book published the prior year by a missionary in Peking (Beijing) (see original French book here with the cover page noting that the author was a missionary and the quote on pg. 32. The original quote is in French, but can be run through an online translator to get general idea. I would guess that the symbols used to generate this theory were from the medieval era, which leaves the suggestion of a connection between those symbols and the history in Genesis open to the claim that stories from Genesis simply influenced the original creation of the word symbol for “large ship.” This idea is dispelled by the discussion on pgs. 100-101 in the article here where the “ship” character made of “boat,” “mouth,” and the number 8 goes back to 700 BC. While stories from the Middle East could have reached China and been incorporated into their pictograms by 700 BC, assuming Biblical history is true, it is more plausible that the pictograms the Chinese invented are based on their own stories rather than something imported.
  75. For the history of Chinese bronze artifacts, see the article here that mentions both when bronze working began in China and details some of the history of its development including an increasing number of symbols on bronze artifacts. See also pg. 429 here for a discussion of the increase in the number of symbols between Shang and Zhou artifacts. For bronze being an alloy of copper and tin, see here.
  76. Regarding the symbol for ship that combines symbols for “boat,” “mouth,” and “eight,” the article here notes on pg. 101 that it was found on a bronze artifact from 700 BC. Earlier on pg. 99, it notes that there is a Taoist legend of eight “immortals” that crossed the sea on a ship. At face value, this appears to explain the origin of that symbol for “ship,” but this depends on the age of the Taoist legend. In order for the Taoist legend to be the source of the inscription, it must be older than 700 BC. Researching this, the timeline of Taoism on pg. XXIV here only goes back to 480 BC. As for the “immortals,” who were once people that supposedly achieved immortality (see pg. 48 here), all their lives started at some point, which would have to be earlier than 700 BC in order to influence the bronze symbol in question. Looking into this, a list of the eight “immortals” is found on pg. 118 here). Going through those names, starting with pg. 70, it mentions one who originally lived during the 600s and 700s AD during the T’ang dynasty. The second and third, on pgs. 150 and 159-160, also lived during the T’ang dynasty putting them no earlier than the 600s AD as well. The fourth, on pg. 214, was based on a real person who was born in 755 AD. The fifth, on pg. 348, came from the Sung (Song) dynasty which began in the 900s AD. The entry for the sixth on pg. 194 doesn’t mention an era, but the comment on pg. 293 here suggests the same T’ang dynasty as some of the others. The seventh, on pgs 201-202 at the first source, also doesn’t give an era, but suggests he was only a legendary character. In another source, an article here says that he came sometime after the 500s BC since he was tutored by someone who supposedly lived in the 500s BC according to the link in that article. That leaves the one on pg. 92 here as possibly the oldest of the supposed “immortals,” as he is described as a general during the Zhou (spelled “Chou”) era, but that entry also states that he lived during the Han dynasty and the article here mentions the same Han time frame and the suggestion that he may have been tutored by another of the “immortals”    perhaps suggesting he wasn’t the oldest of them. If that’s true, none of the “immortals” is older than 500 BC. While I couldn’t find a date for the legend of the “immortals” crossing the sea in a ship, while individual “immortals” show up or are connected to historical characters a little earlier (see pg. 118 here, the eight “immortals” as a group only appeared during the Yuan dynasty when the Mongols ruled China starting in the 1200s AD according to the article here. See specifically pgs. 9-10 that mentions 1250 AD being the earliest story and pg. 18 where a Ming scholar is quoted as saying no evidence of the “immortals” is older than the Yuan era. I recognize that evidence of older Taoist or folklore legends might’ve been lost, but based on what we do find, neither Taoism nor the origin of the eight “immortals” is older than 500 BC, suggesting that the inscription from pg. 101 here (with the symbol in question shown in figure 5D on pg. 100 of that article) predates legends of the “immortals” in question. If so, a different set of eight people on a boat would need to be the source of that symbol, with the story of Noah the most obvious candidate. To me, I wonder if the story of Noah and his family on the ark was forgotten over time, but enough memory of it remained that eventually people invented another story about fictional “immortals,” but that is only my speculation.
  77. There are different opinions about the age of the oracle bones. On pg. 113 of Nelson, E.R., Broadberry, R.E. (1997) God’s Promise to the Chinese. Read Books there is the suggestion that documents dating to 1000 BC are older than the oracle bones. This source suggests the bones date to 1100-1400 BC, and this article gives a similar range. While I do not know the cause of the discrepancy, it could be disagreements over the age of the bones themselves or about the chronology of Chinese monarchies, but that is simply my speculation. I have assumed they date back to the ~1100 BC date which is in the range offered by some of the sources cited above.
  78. For the history of the discovery of the Chinese “oracle bones” from the Shang dynasty era, see here for the mention of their discovery in Anyang and here for a map showing Anyang’s proximity to Beijing (which was used to estimate almost 300 miles between the two cities). The bones were originally found in the late 1800s before research on their inscriptions was begun in 1899 according to the article here after Wang Yirong found the bones in a medicine shop in Beijing according to pg. 672 here. For actual excavations starting in 1928, see here. For Anyang being a capitol of the Shang dynasty, see here, though pg. 405 here says the capitol was only near Anyang. For the number of oracle bones fragments that have been found, see pg. 57 here which mentions 107,000 from a book published in 1978 (with the footnote on that page also mentioning the discovery of the bones at a pharmacy).
  79. For the story of how the oracle bones were used in ancient Shang society, see here which mentions that it was the king or other important people who used them and outlines the process used along with mention of different gods who were the intended target of the questions. Another description is found on pgs. 24-28 here. A similar description is also given on pg. 84 here that mentions both hot rocks or metal (presumably hot) being pressed into the bone to generate the cracks. As for who interpreted the cracks, pg. 406 here says the king was the main source late in Shang history. For turtles or cows often being the source of the bones, see here.
  80. For earlier discussions of Chinese writing and pictograms, see Episode 1. I talked about the theory and gave some examples of how Chinese oracle bone writing might show pictograms related to the history in Genesis in a few earlier episodes. For more detail see Episode 1, Episode 4, Episode 5, Episode 7, and Episode 8 with original reference to various pages of Nelson, E.R., Broadberry, R.E. (1997) God’s Promise to the Chinese.
  81. Examples of oracle bone characters deciphered as pictures can be found in the online article here or in Nelson, E.R., Broadberry, R.E. (1997) God’s Promise to the Chinese. (pgs. 46-48). I only referenced examples already noted in earlier episodes or found online to avoid giving away too much of Nelson and Broadberry’s material, but the book referenced above has many other examples of oracle bone symbols that have been deciphered to attempt to derive the original meaning behind the pictures. I am not qualified to evaluate whether or not their analysis is accurate, but perhaps some support can be found in a letter from and response to a reader in 2002 here with discussion and support for the analysis and a later article published in 2005 analyzing characters related to the flood (see here and discussion in an earlier show note) perhaps supporting the idea that oracle bone and brozeware character meanings are still considered a valid research direction. For the definition of “covet” see here.
  82. For the identification of Iraq as the location of the Tower of Babel from Genesis 11, see Episode 16 which also suggests the Tower of Babel might’ve at least been similar to a ziggurat.
  83. For speculation that the pyramids of Egypt might be memories of a ziggurat-like Tower of Babel, see Episode 17 and the show notes for it.
  84. For the first emperor of the Qin being credited with unifying China, see article here with the second entry on that site mentioning the number of clay soldiers that were buried with him.
  85. For the size of the first emperor’s tomb mound, see pg. 360 here. That source notes that there are claims the hill used to be 380 feet tall (116 meters) though some scholars argue that that number could be due to an error in transcribing the height at sometime in the past according to a footnote on the page cited and linked to above.
  86. For the dimensions of the Great Pyramid of Giza, see article here. For the dimensions of the tomb of the first emperor in China, see pg. 360 here. I used the equation given at this source for calculating the volume of the pyramid and mound. The result should be an underestimate as the top of the first emperor’s tomb is an area rather than a single point at the top as shown in the image on pg. 363 at the above source. Even so, I rounded the answer down from the tomb being over 1.8 times the volume of the pyramid to more than 1.5 times to avoid an overestimate or exaggeration.
  87. For the internal structure of the hill-mound mausoleum of the first Qin emperor, see pgs. 360-363 here. The top picture on pg. 363 makes it look like only one side of the inner mound had separate levels, but the lower image shows the levels on both sides of the ramp that cuts through the wall.
  88. For a discussion of the mounds built by earlier rulers from the Eastern Zhou, see pgs. 366-367 and 371-373 here for images and the suggestion that other smaller tombs also had terraced walls.
  89. For the distance from the tomb of the first emperor to Shimao, I used measurements from the map here. A map of Shimao related to other cities in the area can be found in Figure 1 here.
  90. For the fact that the ruins of Shimao have been known about for some time, including that jade artifacts could be found there, but that digging only started in 2011 see pg. 35 here. For the definition of “jade” as a (generally) green gemstone, see here. For the age of the city given variously as 1,800 to 2,300 BC see comment on pg. 36 at the above article and comment here which also mentions that the ruins show inner and outer walls and gates. For a description of the main hill that stands 230 feet high with the ruins of a palace at the top and whose sides, when cleared of accumulated soil, once formed 11 separate terraces or steps (which is referred to as a “stepped pyramid,”) see pg. 36 here, as well as a section titled, “Shimao and the Northern Zone” here that also refers to the hill as a “stepped pyramid” and notes that the hill was 70 meters high (about 230 feet) and that it had 11 steps. That source also provides a map of the various walls of the settlement and the location of the hill. Another source, on pg. 53-54 here, refers to the hill as a stepped pyramid and notes that walls of the pyramid were artistically decorated with possible religious symbols. That source also interprets the design as evidence that the hill was meant to be used for the high class of Shimao society and aimed at being defensible, but that there were also craft workshops. See also another book without page numbers, in paragraph beginning, “All this is to say,” here for reference to the hill in Shimao as a “stepped pyramidal structure.” Another article also refers to the hill as a pyramid, but notes 20 different steps, which is different than the 11 steps mentioned in other sources. Based on the sources, I assume 11 steps is the more accurate number.
  91. It is my speculation that the steps on the sides of the hill in Shimao were made for defense, though the reference here under the heading “Shimao and the Northern Zone” does mention the walls which makes concerns about invaders likely. Similarly, it is my speculation that the stepped hill might be a memory of the Tower of Babel, which hinges not only on an attempt to mimic that tower, but on the Tower of Babel itself being ziggurat shaped (see earlier show note).
  92. Other than speculation about Khun-lun mountain as a sky ladder (see earlier show note) or the pyramids and stepped pyramids found from different eras in Chinese history, I didn’t come across a specific legend from China of the tower of Babel or the confusion of languages. It could be that no memory of that event was written down, or that the record was lost. If it has survived to the present, I wonder what might be found in the still untranslated oracle bone characters. For 3000 of the 5000 oracle bone symbols still being a mystery as of 2017, see article here. For information on the Shimao stepped hill city, see earlier show note.
  93. I left out a discussion of the Temple of Heaven and the annual sacrifice from this episode. I talked about it earlier in Episode 8 (and see the show note there). For clarity, the annual sacrifice predates by thousands of years the Temple of Heaven complex that was only built during the Ming Dynasty. For ancient reference to the sacrifice, see pg. 34 here that refers to the emperor Shun making an offering (with extended explanation in the footnote to that page). Shun’s life is dated to around the 23rd century BC (though that date is unproven). This record comes from the Shujing dated back to at least 300s BC (for the “Shoo King” and “Shujing” being the same book, compare descriptions here and on the page here. While the Temple of Heaven complex in Beijing might be comparatively recent, pg. 113 in Thong, C. K., Fu, C.L. (2007) Faith of our Fathers: Finding God in Ancient China. Campus Crusade Asia Ltd. Imprint Edition shows an image of an older altar from the same location as the tomb of the first emperor (discussed earlier) that is currently under restoration. In that same book, on pg. 176, it states that the emperor was supposed to kill the sacrificial animal, but between 200 and 700 BC it switched to someone else doing that for him. For that change, the book references the “Record or Rites” with dating back to 500 BC, though modified 400 years later according to article here. The comment on pg. 328 here suggests an alternative, claiming that originally the emperor cultivated a certain section of ground as a ceremony back around 2700 BC and only later started doing sacrifices at the altar instead, though if that is true, the timeline disagrees with Genesis as it has the emperor cultivating ground before the Flood. While it is my speculation, it is interesting to think that the annual sacrifice referenced in the ancient documents might have been a memory of Noah’s offering after leaving the ark.
  94. The god Shang Di (spelled variously with “Ti,” “Di,” or “Te” which I believe all refer to the same being and for which I use “Di” to be consistent) is a possible memory of the God of Genesis based on a discussion on pgs. 24-33 here and pg. 34 here by the same author, though that can be taken as nothing more than that scholar’s opinion. Other references to Shang Di come up on pg. 52 here where it claims that there isn’t a clear story of creation in China, though there is a suggestion that Shang Di has infinite power and is the “Great Ruler” of the universe. It also mentions that “Heaven” is another name for the same being, an idea also noted on pgs. 81-84 in Thong, C. K., Fu, C.L. (2007) Faith of our Fathers: Finding God in Ancient China. Campus Crusade Asia Ltd. Imprint Edition. Elsewhere, in footnote 3 on pg. 79 of the book mentioned above, it claims the symbols for Shang Di and the title of the Shang dynasty are different making it evident that Shang Di is not just an ancestor of the Shang rulers. There is also some material on pg. 46 here and a description of Shang Di in on pgs. 16-22 here with special summary on pg. 20 which notes the parallels between the supreme God in China — spelled “Chang ti” — and the God of Christianity as I understand the context). That book is dated to 1741, so it is not the best source for up-to-date scholarship, but it does show that there is a long history of belief that Shang Di paralleled the God of Genesis. The comment on pgs. 108-109 here suggests that while Shang Di was originally a supreme god, the bias of Confucian scholars minimized his significance. With the parallels, it is plausible to me that Shang Di was a memory of the God of Genesis by the people who settled in China and passed on stories to their children. Even so, many problems still crept into their religion. Beyond the oracle bone communication with their ancestors, the Shang also sacrificed humans when certain buildings were constructed as mentioned on pgs. 23-24 here.

Update 4/12/24: Corrected shownote to say "sister" instead of "wife" in one instance.

Previous: Grandfathers of History, part 4

View Details

Southeast of Babel lay an ocean. Along its shores are stories of a common past.

All the quotes from the Bible for the main story were were taken from the English Standard Version (see ESV copyright here) or the New King James Version. For the other sources, including commentaries, websites, or articles, you can find links and references in the show notes below in the order they appeared. If you have any questions, there’s a link to contact me at the bottom of the page.

Show notes:


  1. In WiderBible episodes 4 to 7 I told the story of the Garden of Eden and gave examples of legends from around the world that paralleled the events Genesis records. The examples I highlighted didn’t go past the point when Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden since I hadn’t discussed any stories from later in Genesis at that point. Other than Cain’s family before the Flood, human history didn’t branch out into separate stories until after the Tower of Babel, so the legends and folklore found around the world should include not only memories of creation and the first sin, that I talked about in those earlier episodes, but also some elements of the Flood, the Tower of Babel, and the confusion of languages. In this series of episodes, as I trace where people went after Babel and the stories they remembered, I’m repeating some details I mentioned earlier that show how various people around the world remembered Eden and what happened there and continuing on with examples of other legends that suggest people recall the Flood and even the events at Babel as well.
  2. For the distance from the place where the Tigris and Euphrates merge to the Persian Gulf, see article here.
  3. For the Tower of Babel being built at Babylon, which once stood on the shores of the Euphrates, see article here and notes on Episode 16.
  4. For the people who settled Nineveh or on the east coast of the Mediterranean sea or along the Nile river, see Episode 17. For Nineveh being built along the Tigris river, see World Encyclopedia entry here.
  5. For the settlers of Greece, Italy, Spain, and Britain, see Episode 18.
  6. For people who settled Europe and Scandinavia, see Episode 19.
  7. For the Karun river going on a northeast-southwest angle into mountainous country, see the articles here and here.
  8. For where Madai’s descendants settled, see notes on Genesis 10:1-2 here and Genesis 10:2 here and here that points to the southern part of the Caspian sea.
  9. For the name “Madai” showing up in Assyrian artifacts from the 800s BC, see note on Genesis 10:2 here and Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers as well as Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For the Medes being from the Iranian plateau, see here.
  10. For Josephus’ reference that the Greeks called the “Madai” the “Medes” see sentence containing, “From Madai came the,” here. For other sources that connect “Madai” with the Medes, see note on Genesis 10:2 here, Genesis 10:3, here, and note on Genesis 10:1-2 here, as well as Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 10:2, note. Zondervan.
  11. There is an idea mentioned in some places that “Madai” might also be linked to “Macedonia,” but this theory doesn’t appear to be widely accepted. For references that do mention it, see note on Genesis 10:2, here and note on Genesis 10:3 here that says “Medes” is the more common identification for “Madai.”
  12. According to the note on Genesis 10:2 here, “Mada” meant “land” in Accadian and the Accadians supposedly believed that the ark landed in the territory of Medai, which is why it was called “the land.” Meanwhile, the article here notes that Mt. Ararat used to be within the borders of ancient Media.
  13. For the geography of Iran, see the article here which notes the rugged nature of the landscape and mentions volcanoes, at least one active one, and earthquakes. For reference to an ancient volcano, see also here.
  14. For the Medes as part of the coalition who defeated the Babylonians, see references in Daniel 5:26-30. For the calculation of 1500 years between Madai’s family leaving Babel and their return with the Persians, I used a date for the tower of Babel of around 2100 BC as an estimate (Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pgs. 42 and 278) Master Books gives dates of 2182 BC and 2008 BC from various sources) and a date for the fall of Babylon to Darius the Mede as 539 BC from Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pgs. 280) Master Books.
  15. For the connection between Babel and Babylon, see Episode 16 and associated show notes.
  16. For the Medes and Persians both being involved in the invasion of Babylon, see comment in Daniel 5:28.
  17. For Persia and Iran being effectively the same, see definition here and here. For Persia only being the name of a southern area in what is modern Iran and the country being officially renamed “Iran” in 1935, see here and here.
  18. Historically, Zoroastrianism was a main religion of Iran and includes a struggle between the good and the evil beings. In that religion, humans have free will and are judged according to what they do. For more see the article here and pgs. 261, 263-264 here. See also show note about Zoroaster in Episode 17. For a discussion of the theoretical influence of Judaism or Zoroastrianism on one another, see later show note.
  19. Some references say there is another ancient Iranian religion called Zurvanite. According to the article here, it possibly arose as a competitor to Zoroastrianism, but it may be based on an older religion of the Medes. It’s suggested on pg. 612 in Kearsley, G. R., Mayan Genesis (2001) Yelsraek publishing that the Mazdean (Zoroastrian, see here) creation myth came from the earlier Zurvanite religion where Zurvan was thought to be both the mother and father of creation. In that story, Zurvan had two sons, one good and one bad. Whether Zurvanite was a precursor or simply a competitor to Zoroastrianism isn’t clear.
  20. According to pg. 259 here, the records we have on the religion in Iran go back to the 500s to 300s BC when the Achaemenid kings inscribed some details, and from the Avesta, which was compiled from remnants of what was left over after Alexander the Great destroyed much documentation during his invasion of the Persian empire. The oldest parts appear to go back to before the 500s BC, but the later elements may have been written during the first few hundred years AD.
  21. For the ancient Persian kings being followers of Zoroaster, see pg. 260 here. For both Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu being considered gods in Persian religion, see here and here.
  22. For a description of the dualism in Zoroastrianism and an overview of the good and evil forces, see pgs. 260-261 here.
  23. For the evil spirit having the shape of a log and being compared to a lizard, see pg. 277 here. On pg. 320 in that reference they suggest the development of Iranian religion had the antagonist go from a serpent-like storm cloud, to just a serpent, to a human monster. I could suggest that the snake as an underlying element might be memories of the history in Eden, though that is my speculation.
  24. In another interesting parallel between the Persian evil spirit and Satan in the Bible, Angra Mainyu is described as going after the stars, and jumping into the sky like a snake on pg. 277 here.
  25. I don’t guarantee that I pronounced the names correctly in any of these stories.
  26. For the “white haoma” growing in the sea and being the most important plant and a source of immortality, as well as the story of a lizard trying to attack it and other creatures defending it, see pgs. 281-282 here. For the creator god sending parts of the plant to earth to cure illness, see pg. 265 at the above source (and pg. 281 where these plants are called the “yellow haoma” and grow on the tops of mountains). See also the article here. From what I can tell, this earthly version of the haoma may or may not have been believed to give eternal life, though the original “white haoma” is specifically stated as giving immortality on pg. 281 at the above reference.
  27. For the story of the proto-human whose description sounds like it might have elements of a memory of Adam (at least to me) see pgs. 293-294 here. The article here suggests that this entity was from “later” Zoroastrian religion, so it may have been an addition to the religion rather than an original element of it.
  28. For the story of Masha and Mashyoi, one version of the first human couple in Iranian lore, see pgs. 296-297 here.
  29. Though it isn’t a story of a “first man,” there is also a reference to the god Mithra on pg. 287 here who was born under a holy fig tree and then made clothes from the fig leaves, an element that has similarities to Genesis 3 with the story of fruit trees (both a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and a Tree of Life) and the wearing of fig leaves. In addition, Mithra then left to rule all the previously created animals in the world, a parallel to Adam’s responsibility in Genesis 1:27-28, though any connection between the stories of Adam and Mithra is just my speculation.
  30. As best I can tell, the parallel stories of the first humans being called either Masha and Mashyoi or Yima and Yimaka is related to the blending of different traditions, with Yima and Yimaka being the older version of the legend according to the article here which states that Gayomart replaced them and (as mentioned in earlier show note) Masha and Mashyoi were descended from Gayomart. See also pg. 294 for reference to Yima and Yimaka here and pg. 298 in the same source that notes that Gayomart and Gaya Maretan are the same entity. Later on, in pgs. 312-313 in the above source, there is a long comparison between Yima and his counterpart “Yama” in Indian legends (see later show notes on India), but it ends with noting that the Yima was made a king of ancient history in Iranian lore because they already had Gaya Maretan as a legend of the first man, so to make the story coherent, they moved Yima to a later point in history, though elements of the stories about him including protecting the world, growing the population, protecting people in an enclosure from a global disaster, and being the first to offer sacrifices (see later show notes for specifics) all sound much like elements in the lives of Adam and Noah, though that is just my speculation.
  31. For the story of the creator telling Yima to increase, watch, guard, and protect the creatures in the world, see pg. 306 here. On the previous page in the above source, the author notes that Yima was probably once both the king and spiritual leader, but because Zoroastrians wanted to save the spiritual teachings for Zarathustra, they had Yima reject that role and become only responsible for growth and protection. For Adam’s role in the Garden of Eden as ruler and guardian, see Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 2:15.
  32. For Yima having a sister-wife named Yimak, see pg. 310 here (pg. 294 says that her name was “Yimaka”). For different traditions regarding lies, presumption (see last line of poem), and forbidden food, see pgs. 309-310 in the above source. For the story of the divine light leaving Yima after his sinm which left him unable to defend himself such that he was conquered by a serpent, see pgs. 310-311. For Yima’s sin being speaking lies, see here which refers to “falsehood” entering his speech.
  33. For the story of Yima building an enclosure to preserve two of every kind of living thing (and fire) from a coming winter, see pgs. 180-182 here where the author first notes that some people have connected the story to a Flood tradition, but then argues against it. See also the article here which mentions that Yima was originally the first man, but was displaced by Gayomart (see earlier shownote) and that Yima is also known as “Jamshid.” Pg. 309 in that source notes that it is unclear whether the “winter” in the legend is in the past or the future, but there appears to be at least a later belief that the safe-haven will open in the future and let people out to repopulate the world.
  34. For the Iranian legend of the flood that might be a modification of an earlier story and perhaps related to droughts, see pgs. 269-270 here. For the protagonist being a god, see reference on pg. 267 in the above source. While this may not be a reference to Noah’s flood, the language of a global flood that got rid of evil creatures certainly sounds that way, but that is my speculation.
  35. For the suggestion that the stories in the Bible have their origin in Zoroastrian beliefs from Persia (to be clear, a theory I do not subscribe to) see here. This theory relies on the idea that Genesis was written a thousand years later than the traditional timeline. For the traditional date when Genesis was written, note that Moses is connected with the writing of Genesis in the authorship comment in Zondervan. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible: Bringing to Life the Ancient World of Scripture. Zondervan. Kindle Edition and in the entry on “Genesis” in Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. As for when Moses lived, see the entry on “Moses” in Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 761). Review and Herald Publishing Association that gives his estimated birth at around 1525 BC, long before any Persian captivity. I think there are reasons to believe that Genesis was written in the days of Moses, rather than after the Persian captivity. Not only would the writer of Genesis need to copy a Persian origin story into the start of Jewish family legends about Abram, but they would also need to change any already written books (such as Exodus, Deuteronomy, Jonah, Psalms, and Job) that reference creation or man’s first sin to agree with that part of Genesis that they had just written. Beyond that, their new book (and all the other modified ones) would need to displace any other books, beliefs, or history that the Jews already had in favor of them all adopting Persian beliefs. Besides the idea that the Genesis stories come from Persia, there’s the theory that Persian stories come from Genesis with Persian beliefs being influenced by Jews or Christians. See, for instance, pg. 298 here. Also on pg. 346-347 in that source, the evil spirit mocks the wicked after they die and asks them why they didn’t obey their creator, a scene that sounds like what you might expect from Christian beliefs. The author of the above source also notes on pg. 317, however, that while Yima’s sin doesn’t sound like an original part of the story (in his estimation) he admits that the idea of a sin committed by the first men as the cause of evil on the earth is common and not just due to Christian or Jewish sources. Given that the Zoroastrian records were organized during the Christian era (see earlier show note), it is possible that Christian history could have influenced what we know of Zoroastrian beliefs. It is also possible that the stories in Genesis and Persia are similar because both groups remember the same story of the beginning of the world with Genesis recording history while the other records only have a fuzzy version of that history in Zoroastrian legends.
  36. For the Jews living in Persia, see references in Daniel 6, Ezra 1, Nehemiah 2, and the book of Esther. For the dates of the Jews being in Persia, see pg. 280 in Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pgs. 6-7). Master Books which gives their arrival in Babylon as 606 BC and the Persian takeover of Babylon as 539 BC.
  37. In Iran there are stories of an ox as part of their mythology that the author on pg. 288 here sees as links to other older Indo-european myths including those from Scandinavia. Given the limited records we have about how people migrated and divided and combined with one another after Babel, it’s not evident where the similar legends got their start, but it does perhaps suggest either a common origin or a interaction and trade between groups who shared similar stories. If these similar stories did spread because of trade rather than a common history, it would support the argument that the similarities between stories in Iran and Genesis could also be due to trade rather than a common history, but, while that is a possibility, it doesn’t rule out the alternative that the similarities between the history in Genesis and elements in stories from Iranian mythology are due to a common past.
  38. Of the ancient records found in India, the Rigveda is the oldest, going back to around 1500 BC according to pg. 5 here and the article here, though that second source notes that it was only preserved orally until about 300 BC when it was written down (for more on the history of Vedic texts, see pgs. 531-532 in Kearsley, G.R., Mayan Genesis. (2001).Yelsraek publishing. London.). In addition there are “Brahmanas” which explain the earlier writings and were themselves written before 700 BC. Other Indian materials including the Mahabharata came later with the above article giving 400 BC - 200 AD as a range. In another place, pg. 11 here suggests that the Indian religion developed between 1200 and 800 BC and, on pg. 12, that the Mahabharata was only finished in the 500s AD, though mostly done between 200 BC and 200 AD.
  39. India has a lot of religions and history and it can be tough to keep the timeline straight. To that end, the recorded history starts with the Vedic period from around 1500-500 B.C. According to the article here this is when the Rigveda (referenced earlier) was written and describes practices called “Brahmanism” or “Vedism” that eventually turned into Hinduism by mixing with other religions. Bhuddism didn’t arise until 600 - 400 BC and was, according to pgs. 259-260 here the result of a backlash against the pride of Hindu priests. Jainism supposedly started around 700 BC, but according to pg. 220 here, the writings of Jainism were still being modified until the 400s AD.
  40. For the descendants of Madai continuing on from Iran to India, see reference to “Hindostan” on Genesis 10:1-2 here and definition of “Hindustan” here as well as the article here that notes a link between Iran and India. For further reference to India being settled by people descended from Japheth, see note on Genesis 10:2 here.
  41. For the story of a lake draining out of the Kashmir Valley (spelled Cashmeer in the source) see pgs. 204-207 here. For more information on the size and location of the Kashmir valley that used to hold a lake, see here.
  42. For what the world would’ve been like after the Flood, see theorized description of the Ice age in Episode 19.
  43. There’s a suggestion that a branch of Kush’s family went to India in note on Genesis 10:11 here because of some places with similar names, but the author admits that Kush usually refers to Ethiopia in the Bible. For a discussion of people who settled Ethiopia, see Episode 17.
  44. The author on pg. 21 here draws a link between the name of the Indian sky god “Dyaus” and the Greek god “Zeus” and notes that he is called in one place “Father sky” similar to a name in Greek and the Latin “Iuppiter,” though the author goes on to note that the best parallel to Zeus in Indian lore is the god Varuna, not Dyaus, so while the names are similar, the descriptions of the gods themselves appear somewhat different.
  45. While there’s debate over who modern Indians are descended from, the article here referencing a paper on a genetic analysis of southern Asia suggests that three different groups came to India over time, divided between the first settlers of India and two later waves of settlers who came in from the direction of Iran (the timeline in the article doesn’t match the length of history given in the Bible, but I assume the migration theory could be plausible even if the time frame of the events was scaled down to match the history in Genesis). There is also a reference on pg. 223 in Kearsley, G. R. (2001) Mayan Genesis. Yelsraek publishing suggests that some migration of people into India came after a split from people in Iran and that the evil beings called “asuras” are a memory of the benevolent “ahuras” from Iranian lore. Regarding the “first” settlers in India after the Flood, I assume they are an earlier branch of Japheth’s family that arrived before any later migrations from Iran, though that is just my speculation.
  46. For comparisons between Yima (in Iran) and Yama and Yami (in India) see pgs. 24 and 312-316 here. In another similarity, the morality of incest comes up as an issue in these stories in both Iran and India on pg. 310 in the above source. The author argues that Yima and Yama are images of the sunset and notes that the death of men and the sunset use the same word in Sanskrit, but this sets aside the possibility that they may have been inspired by memories of Adam, creation, the first sin, and the Flood, though that is my speculation.
  47. For the plant of immortality, the Iranians have the “haoma” (see earlier show notes) while in India it’s the “soma.”. The article here argues that this similarity of belief precedes the separate Iranian and Indian religions. See also a comment on pg. 282 here that notes that the sacrifice of the haoma was believed to originate far back in history. As for the “soma,” it was made from shoots of a plant that were pressed and then mixed with various things and offered to the gods and drunk by the priests to give power and immortality according to pg. 46 here.
  48. It’s hard to tell what exactly is going on in Indian mythology. In one case (on pg. 18 here) it says that Indra produced his own parents and that a creator-god is described as both the father and son of the god of endless space. On the same page, the author admits that its hard to figure out human stories as well.
  49. For other similarities between beliefs in Iran and India, note pg. 24 here where it states that “order” in India is the same as the “Asha” of the Iranian Avesta. Furthermore, Varuna is suggested to be the same as the main god, Ahura Mazda, of the Iranians. In addition, on pg. 25 it notes that Varuna and Mitra, the Indian gods, are mentioned on a Mitanni inscription in norther Mesopotamia from 1400 BC and states that it isn’t clear whether these gods were Iranian or Indian. In another parallel, there is the story of Indra killing a dragon (see pg. 36 here) compared to the story of Thraetona from Iran on pg. 265 here who killed a dragon with three jaws and three heads and six eyes that had been made by Angra Mainyu, the evil spirit. One could see the similarities between these religions as evidence of mixing or as evidence of a common origin. The earlier in history the similarities come up, the more I am inclined to see it as evidence of a common origin.
  50. A reference on the history of early Indian gods noted that Mitra, Indra, and Varuna were mentioned by the Hittites as gods of Mitanni, an ancient kingdom in modern-day Turkey according to Kearsley, G.R. (2001) Mayan Genesis. (pgs. 219, 531). Yelsraek Publishing. This reference also comes up for Indra on pg. 32 here.
  51. Figuring the chief or head god of Indian mythology is challenging given that the definitions of different gods overlap. Varuna is described (in various entries at the above source) as omniscient and a creator to whom moral behavior was important. On pg. 22 here Varuna is labeled as all-powerful, omnipresent, and all-knowing. Later on pg. 23 it notes that he is kind and pardons those who repent, that he can take away or lengthen life, and that he guards immortality. Even so, pg. 24 in that source notes that “order” is higher than Varuna. The author’s suggestion that Varuna is the same as the Iranian head-god Ahura Mazda (see pg. 24) suggests that Varuna is the chief god in his opinion. Alternatively, Prajapati is thought to be a creator god, though the reference on pg. 26 here suggests that worship of Prajapati replaced Varuna. Regardless of which was the actual “supreme” god in their heritage, it is interesting to note that they had a concept of a god who was all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present, and had a history as the creator. For more on Prajapati, see later show note.
  52. Beyond the supreme god, there are many other gods in ancient Indian lore. Indra was the king of the gods and oriented toward war. The author also notes, on pg. 25 here that Varuna (see earlier show note) is moral, but Indra is not. It’s also pointed out that sometimes Indra is given credit as the greatest of the gods, even more than Varuna, but generally is considered an independent ruler who gained respect by killing the dragon named Vrtra that held back waters (see previous article and pg. 33 at above source). Rather than being a respected god, in Iran, Indra is only mentioned as one of the demons of Angra Mainyu, the evil spirit (see pg. 265 here). The author of the above source, on pg. 35, references that Indra might’ve come from beliefs about a storm god and that even in the Vedic timeframe (early Indian history, see earlier show note) people doubted that he existed. Another god, Siva (also spelled Shiva), destroys and recreates the world every so often. The description of Siva on pg. 111 here notes that he has a bow that is colorful like a rainbow but is also a venomous snake with seven heads. Perhaps it isn’t too much of a stretch to tie this description of a god of destruction and recreation with a serpent-shaped and rainbow colored “bow” to memories of the Flood, but that is just my speculation. Vishnu was once a minor god but is now considered as both the chief god and a savior who has lived a number of times including as both Krishna and Buddha. Vishnu is also described as a kind and caring god who takes the shape of a human whereas Siva never does according to pg. 121 here. On the same page, after the flood, Vishnu is recorded as taking the shape of a boar when he pulled land back up out of the water (for more on the flood story, see later show notes relating to the story of Manu). As for the other forms, on pg. 126 here the author references another book suggesting that Krishna was never more than a man who was made into a god, but then the author goes against that idea and thinks that Krishna was originally a god who represented vegetation and the dark earth (good growing soil, I imagine). As for Buddha, he lived around 500 BC according to one of the entries here, but as referenced in previous show note, he was adopted as an incarnation of Vishnu as explained on pgs. 259-260 here. The fire-god is known as Agni and is also said to “mystically” be the gods Varuna, Mitra (see earlier show note), Savitr, and Indra at different times on pg. 43 here which perhaps explains why pg. 44 credits Agni with being the “slayer of Vrtra” even though Indra is given that credit elsewhere (see earlier in this show note). Agni is given many descriptions including as an eagle or another bird, a calf or bull or horse or, in one case, a winged serpent on pg. 41 at the above source. Another entity mentioned in Indian lore is Vivasvant (see pg. 28 here which is a title for the sun and also the father of Yama and Manu (see other show notes). The author of the book I have referenced for many of the stories and legends from Indian heritage argues that the gods originated from some natural element like the sky, the sun, or a storm (see pg. 39 here as well as the earlier reference to Vishnu as a vegetation god mentioned above). Beyond the names above, there’s also mention of gods described in the “epic” (though it isn’t clear which Indian document is referred to) but says that none of them is as powerful as Siva and Vishnu and that Indra is only described as great on pg. 131 here. As for how people became gods, one scholar noted that there isn’t much difference between the gods and men in Indian lore, so its not hard to see how the gods were just men who gained immortality by one means or another. For more, see pgs. 18-19 here.
  53. In the last and most recent book of the Rigveda it speculates that world was originally darkness, space, and water according to pg. 17 here. See also Kearsley, G.R. (2001) Mayan Genesis. (pgs. 854, and 927). Yelsraek Publishing.
  54. According to Indian legend, the first man was either Manu (see later show note) or Yama, with both being sons of Vivasvant according to pg. 294 here. Yama and his sister Yami were twins and Yami convinced Yama to have children and they became the parents of all humans according to pg. 294 and pg. 68. Beyond being the first man, Yama is also the king of the dead and the first person to die and to show people how to die according to pg. 20 and pgs. 68-69 with the righteous hoping to see Varuna (see earlier show note) and Yama as stated on pg. 23. Interestingly enough, while Yama is connected to the gods, he is never called a god, instead he is the first person to die and a king of the dead (see pg. 69). Whether Yama judges the dead or not isn’t clear. On pg 69 it says that he probably isn’t a judge, but on pg. 160 it says that he is the judge of the dead. Regardless of that detail, Yama has many similarities to Adam in Genesis, though that’s only my speculation.
  55. For snakes in India, see introduction to book here.
  56. As for snake stories in India, there’s a reference to worshipers coming to a “serpent of the deep” to ask for protection from injury on pg. 37 here, though I can’t tell what era that story comes from. Oddly, after this reference, on pg. 62 the same author suggests that there isn’t reference to the worship of snakes. Other references in that source include pg. 67 that notes Indra killing a great snake named “Vrtra” but there were many other “vrtras” besides that big one. The earliest clear reference I found to serpents was to a snake queen mentioned on pg. 96    that comes from Brahmana writings which were made before 700 BC (see earlier show note). Strangely, in India snakes are thought to be both good and evil (see Kearsley, G.R. (2001) Mayan Genesis. (pg. 715). Yelsraek Publishing). The evil belief isn’t hard to understand since snakes they would hang out where food was stored and bite people who came by (see above pg. 715 reference), but the good part is more mysterious as there wasn’t a reference to what benefit the snakes provided. The same source, on pg. 359, argues that India has a history of encouraging people to worship snakes.
  57. As for later legends about snakes in India, it is the Mahabharata (which was written before about 200 AD, see earlier show note) which offers the first details of the nagas, or serpent people according to this article. The nagas are described as violent, poisonous, and handsome and notes that the most famous legend about them is a man who tried to sacrifice them for the death of his father on pg. 154 here. According to pg. 333 here the nagas had gems in their heads and a drink that gave immortality. Interestingly, the comment on the entry from pgs. 2-4 here notes that neither Brahmanism (precursor to Hinduism) nor Buddhism could get rid of the worship of nagas, so they incorporated it into their own religions, which, if correct, suggests to me that the worship of snakes is one of the oldest religious practices in India, or at least older than Brahmanism. The article also says that Indra (see earlier show note) preferred to be called “Indra-nag” and that he was a chief of the nagas “who once reigned in Paradise, but came back to earth to rule Nagas,” which suggests a connection between Indra and Satan (especially given that Indra is known for violence and amorality, see earlier show note) though such a connection is just my speculation. All told, I don’t know when all of these legends arose in time. The later they are, the more likely they were influenced by outside stories from Christianity and Judaism, but there is at least some reason to suspect that the stories are early enough that the idea if not the specifics of each legend has a grain of truth, though that is only my opinion. For an earlier mention of nagas, see Episode 5. In Genesis, the serpent is the deceiver. For the reversal of that idea in other legends from around the world, see Episode 7.
  58. There are also connections between stories in India and Scandinavia. In Kearsley, G.R. (2001) Mayan Genesis. (pgs. 715-716). Yelsraek Publishing the author references a different source that suggests the snake elements of Norse mythology probably came from somewhere to the south as there aren’t many snakes in the north, and notes that it means people in Scandinavia either gained the idea from people who lived to the south, or that they had a “common origin” with people from India.
  59. Another snake legend, this one from the Kumis of east India, says that God made a man and woman from clay, but a snake came and ate it every day until God made a dog to guard them. Even today people think that a serpent comes and takes people when they die, and that sickness and death are only in the world because God slept. For this story, see pgs. 17-18 here. That same source notes other stories where god made man who was then destroyed by an evil spirit so god made a dog that protected the man, and another version where fiery horses trample the images until once again a dog was made to protect them. It is interesting that this legend places the blame on God for disease and death, saying that such things wouldn’t exist if God hadn’t slept, rather than assigning responsibility for human sin to the first humans, as the history in Genesis records.
  60. For the story of Buddha gaining knowledge under a sacred tree or under a snake, see the article here as well as Kearsley, G.R. (2001) Mayan Genesis. (pg. 719-720). Yelsraek Publishing who notes that the link between the tree and snake comes from some of the earliest references to Buddha. For when Buddhism arose, see earlier show note.
  61. For the story of the planting of seven garden plots, with one of them being off-limits to eat from, see Kearsley, G.R. (2001) Mayan Genesis. (pg. 929). Yelsraek Publishing. In that story, the planter’s name is “Mahadeo” which is given as “Great God,” which would suggest that it represents the creator, though it is Mahadeo’s wife who eats the forbidden food and Mahadeo appeals to “Bhagavan” (a reference to Buddha or the gods, see entry on pg. 108 here) as someone higher than he, suggesting to me that Bhagavan is the god in the story (which makes Mahadeo a human), though on pg. 18 here there is a reference in another story to “Mahadeo” and the statement that he is the same as “Siva.”
  62. For the story of Manu, the fish, and the Flood, see notes at the start of Genesis 8 here. There’s another version of the same story here with details that the fish was the god Vishnu, that the ship was made and sent by Vishnu, and that animals and Manu along with seven sages and their wives were all on the ship. See also pg. 92 here which references “Ida” the goddess who appeared from Manu’s sacrifice as his daughter and with whom he remakes the world (though the author notes that she is also the daughter of Mitra and Varuna). For other versions and details of the story, see also pg. 99, 124, and 147 at that source. There’s a reference on pg. 121 at the above source to Vishnu being a boar at one point and pulling land up out of the water, but it’s unclear if that refers to another story. As for the age of these legends, according to pg. 94 here the author says the early literature that was written between 1500 and 1000 BC doesn’t mention the Flood, but the later legends talk about it often with another reference (pg. 183-194 here saying it is at least as old as the 6th century BC. In contrast, the comment on pg. 269 here claims the story goes back to 1000 BC and the details on pg. 99 in the chapter on the Brahmanas (see earlier show note for when they were written) here says that the story of Manu was significant during that era suggesting the legend is an early story rather than a later invented tale.
  63. In Indian lore, Yama is the first man to die (see earlier show note) while Manu is the first to offer sacrifices (see pg. 65 here). While there are sacrifices recorded before Noah in Genesis (see Genesis 4:3-5, Noah’s sacrifice after the Flood (see Genesis 8:20) could easily be remembered as the first one by his later descendants who had forgotten the earlier history. Yama and Manu are brothers with the same father but different mothers (see pgs. 65 and 53 at the above source). While that isn’t true of Adam and Noah, given that Adam was the father of all humans and Noah was his descendant, it’s not surprising if the memories about them were mixed together, but that is just my speculation.
  64. For the story of two children in a log for a 12 year flood, see pg. 195 here. The author suggests the part about the birds acting as messengers to the god is due to missionary influence on the native story.
  65. For the Munda story of the Flood of fire-rain, see pgs. 195-196 here. There is also another story credited to the Munda people in Kearsley, G.R. (2001) Mayan Genesis. (pgs 913-914). Yelsraek Publishing. In that story it describes a flood with fire-rain, but before that, recalls a story of creation of the world and the first people being hatched from an egg rather than made from dust. The first couple is taught to make alcohol, and then has three sons, which sounds to me like it might be a muddled record of Noah having three sons and Noah’s use of alcohol after the Flood. In addition, after the parents die, the three sons travel across the Earth seeing places no human had been before, just as you might expect from the only survivors of a worldwide Flood, though that’s only my speculation. Kearsley (on pg. 914) notes that the similarities to stories from the middle east make it evident (to that author) that the story was influenced from there. If people all came from Babel (in the middle east) at some point in their family history, though, then one should expect similar elements in these stories. See also pg. 854 in the above source that notes a tribe related to the Mundas who tell a    creation story of a crow searching for land and the suggestion that this element is recalls Noah’s actions at the end of the Flood in Genesis 8:6-7.
  66. For rainbow legends, there is a note on Genesis 9:13, here that mentions a rainbow as a symbol that the war in heaven has calmed down according to Hindu stories, though it is also possible to explain this meaning if rainbows only appear after a thunderstorm has mostly passed.
  67. For the story of a water demon flooding the world to chase a woman, see pgs. 198-199 here. The story claims that the world was level before that point, but clearly it wasn’t completely level as there was a hill that everyone could flee to. Instead, perhaps it makes more sense to understand that there were lower hills before the flood in the story, but not high mountains and deep valleys.
  68. For the Hindu story of Indra knocking over a tower to heaven, see pg. 134 here. As the reference is to a Brahmana, that would make the story around 700-900 BC according to this article though the same story is referenced on pg. 656 in Kearsley, G.R. (2001) Mayan Genesis. Yelsraek Publishing and it gives a date of at least 600 BC.
  69. As for tower-to-heaven stories, there is also a vague reference on pg. 66 here to the “Dasas” who attempt to reach heaven to prevent the gods from getting sun and water.
  70. There are various references to Prajapati (or Prajapeti) in the sources I used for this episode. First, regarding the name, “Prajapati” means “Lord of Creatures” or “Lord of Offspring” according to pgs. 19 and 27 here as well as the entry for “Prajapati” here with “pati” meaning “lord” and “praja” linked to “of creatures.” The reference in Kearsley, G.R. (2001) Mayan Genesis. (pg. 219). Yelsraek Publishing suggests the meaning of “Prajapati” is “Lord of Creatures” and that he was the “first deity” who, along with the fire-god Agni (see earlier show note) created the early Vedic texts. On pg. 26 and 73 here it suggests that the worship of Prajapati increased over time while the worship of Varuna (see earlier show note) fell. There is also the comment on pg. 74 at that source that notes that Prajapati and Visvakarman are the same and that Prajapati made the earth, air, sky, gods, and evil beings. Regarding Prajapati’s power, he is described as the creator who gives life and as the god of gods. He also brought forth the water and looked over the floods according to pg. 51 here. In the same source, pgs. 75-76 note that Prajapati isn’t immortal by birth nor is he all good. The speculative link between “Prajapati” and Japheth in Genesis comes from Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 193). Appendix 3. Kindle Edition. Whether or not this theory is true, in the very least, the meaning “Lord of Offspring” fits well with the memory of Japheth as their forefather, and it isn’t hard to imagine how Japheth would have been thought of as a god over time, especially as he probably lived for several hundred years after the Flood (as did Noah and Shem, see Genesis 9:28 and Genesis 11:11). As a side note, the name “Prajapati” is far from isolated as pg. 111 in the above source also notes that “Dhatr” is also the creator and another name for Prajapati, “Soma” is also known as “Lord of Offspring,” and “Shiva” is also called “Pasupati” which also means “Lord of Creatures.”
  71. Another name for Prajapeti is “Brahma” according to pg 78 here, and in a version of Manu’s flood story, the fish who rescues Manu is Brahma rather than Vishnu according to pgs. 75 and 124 here. As far as other details about Brahma, pg. 108-109 describes his altar and a sacrifice he performed on a mountain and states that he is less important than Shiva and Vishnu.
  72. For details on Bangladesh’s climate, see pgs. 83-84 in “Bangladesh” entry in WorldBook Encyclopedia (2020). Chicago.
  73. For Bangladesh as a tornado hotspot, and the reasons for it, see here.
  74. Oral traditions usually cannot be proved right or wrong as there may not be other evidence to validate them. They may have been invented yesterday or they could trace back hundreds or thousands of years through many generations. The details in the legends might be be correct, or heavily modified, or complete fiction. To me, since we can’t prove how old an oral tradition is, some of their value comes from how widespread common themes or details are between the oral traditions passed along in different societies. Think of it as wide information versus deep information. Old documents, like what you find buried in the sands of Egypt or Iraq, are deep information because they are time capsules containing stories that haven’t changed since those records were buried. In contrast, oral traditions are wide information because they come from all over the world. When these stories, collected from people who are far apart, have similar details, it suggests to me that they remember some of the same events. If a story in southeast Asia, for instance, sounds like one from northern Siberia, it gives some support to the idea that those stories go back to a time when people from southeast Asia had contact with those in Siberia, and for isolated groups that live far away from each other, that might reach very far back in history. As a counter argument, it is easy to claim that a story was invented or passed along and spread over time from one tribe to the next, but I wonder if that is easier said than done. Oral traditions are an important part of the basis of a group’s identity and I doubt that large groups of people would easily modify their history and change their identity, just to accommodate a new story, though that is only my opinion.
  75. For the story from Bangladesh that describes the creation of the world, the first people, the making of alcohol after listening to “Maran Buru,” the survivors of a fire-rain hiding in a cave, repopulating the world, living on a plain, and being divided into different groups, see pgs. 3-9 here. As for the identity of “Maran Buru” the story on pg. 6 refers to him as “Lita,” though the footnote on that page says that “Lita” is the real name of the chief “bonga.” The “bongas” are “spirits” according to the article here. While “Maran Buru” is the chief spirit, it is different than the creator which is named Thakur Jiu in both the article above and the story recorded by Skrefsrud. With all the parallels between the Santal story and the history in Genesis, I would expect there to be debate over whether the Santal story was influenced or modified by contact with Christianity. Later in the legends Skrefsrud records, the Santal source does mention past animosity with Muslims (pgs. 12-13), and since Islam arose after Christianity (see here which gives the founding as 622), it suggests at least some contact with the outside world after Christianity arose and prior to Skrefsrud’s arrival. Furthermore, after telling the story recorded by Skrefsrud, the translator of the above book adds additional legends and suggests, on pg. 14, that the language used to describe creation in one of those legends sounds Christian, though it is unclear the source of that material. On the other side, there are a few things that support the idea that the stories told to Skrefsrud were true Santal memories and beliefs. First, the story of creation recorded on pgs. 3-5 doesn’t sound particularly like Genesis at all. In summary, the first man is formed from dust, but then is trampled by a horse. Then birds are made instead. When the birds have no food, the god asks help from an alligator, a prawn, a fish, a crab, an earthworm, and a tortoise to help make land without saying whether the god created those animals already or not. The earth is then formed on the back of the tortoise out of dirt brought from under the sea by the earthworm, and plants grow. The birds lay eggs and the first humans hatch from those eggs. The birds then had to find a place for the humans to live and tell the god where it was. It’s only after that point that the part of the story involving “Lita” and the human’s making alcohol begins. Beyond that, after people are grouped in the plain, the story becomes much more focused on the migration of the ancestors of the Santal, and how they came to worship Maran Buru, which makes the history specific to them rather than something imported from another tribe or civilization. Furthermore, as is outlined on pg. 2 at the above source, the Santal stories were told twice for every member of the community, meaning that everyone would have heard the stories frequently over the course of their lives. This let the community act as a group memory of the past and likely helped stories stay more consistent over time (I would assume). Beyond this consistency, as more people know a story, and it forms some of their identity, I think it would be harder to incorporate the early history of a foreign source into family history (as stated earlier), though this is only my speculation. For another summary of three versions of the Santal’s legends, see pgs. 196-198 here. In that story, the mountain where the couple shelters from the fire-rain is called “Haradata” while in Skrefsrud’s version it is “Harata.” The note from Richardson, Don. Eternity in Their Hearts (p. 39). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition observes that the name “Harata” sounds like “Ararat.” For the location where the Santals live, including Bangladesh, see here.
  76. For the legends from the Andaman islanders, see pgs. 95-101 here. For the author’s use of elders for his information, see pg. 95, point number 2. For the descendants of the first man spreading out and getting different languages from god, see pgs. 97-98 at the above source. The footnote on pg. 98 notes the authors suggestion that this story might be a memory of the confusing of the languages at the Tower of Babel in Genesis. This legend of language confusion occurs before the flood in their recollection, but point 22 on pg. 101 at the above source notes that after the Flood, the population again increased, people spread out a second time, used a different language, and were given a name for their tribe. In short, the Andaman legends tell of two instances where people spread out and their language changed, once before the Flood and once after. As for their story of the Flood itself, I said it was after the death of the first two people, though technically their legend says that they drowned and turned into a whale and a crab with other people who had died in the story becoming iguanas (see pg. 98). The story of the flood is found on pgs. 98-99 at the above source. It’s interesting to note that the legend discusses fire and the god coming to talk to people for the last time as they plot to kill him. I wonder if this element of the story is a mixture of memories of Noah’s sacrifice on an altar after leaving the ark (the fire) and God coming to talk to Noah and his family (see Genesis 8:20-22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+8%3A20-22&version=NKJV)), and the rebellion against God at Babel (see Genesis 11:1-8, but, once again, I am only speculating. There’s also a legend that a jealous man killing another man was a precursor to the Flood on pgs. 99-101 that reminds me of Cain and Abel. Finally, the Andaman islanders note that the descendants of the chief survivor of the flood were big-bodied (see footnote 3 on pg. 101), had large beards, and lived for a long time. The first and last of those features fit well with the history in Genesis 10-11. This source and story is also referenced on pg. 233 here.
  77. According to pg. 253 here there is speculation that there was a common language across southeast Asia at one point, but what that language was isn’t clear.
  78. For the creation story of the Katchins, which includes earth being formed from a fog, see pgs. 263-264 here. The story goes on with a summary of lots of other spirits and the earth being formed by one being with a hammer who lived on a mountain.
  79. For the story of the nine beings who came down for the sky and started eating a kind of rice that cooked itself, becoming too heavy to go back to the sky and then developing crime, see pg. 265 here.
  80. The Kachin story of animals eating the plant of life is found on pgs. 296-297 here. That story also notes that this is the reason that animals can be sacrifices for humans, a connection that the author suggests comes from Buddhism.
  81. For two gourds bringing both death and passion into the world, see pgs. 288-290 here.
  82. In another legend of the first sin, a man had grown old nine times, but then faked his death, leading to the god killing him and death entering the world. For details, see pgs. 264-265 here.
  83. For the story of the brother and sister who threw a crow and a needle out of their boat to see if the flood had gone down, see pgs. 98-99 here. The story goes on to describe the brother and sister finding elves in a cave, and one elf killing their baby, but ultimately the scattered parts of that baby become all the people in the world making the sister who survived in the boat the mother of mankind, as pg. 99 at the above source states.
  84. For the Shan stories of the wise man who survived a flood and planted a gourd, or the seven pairs of people who survived a flood floating on a giant gourd, see pgs. 199-204 here.
  85. For a story about a brother and sister surviving a flood in a sealed drum, see pg. 305 here.
  86. For the story of the Flood where a man and woman were sealed in a ship before the ground was broken open and water flooded the earth, see pg. 211 here.
  87. For the story of the Flood where a brother and sister were shut inside a chest for seven days and nights, see pgs. 209-210 here. For Cochinchina being located in southern Vietnam, see here.
  88. For the stories of the giant descendants of Ram who tried to build a tower to control heaven, see pg. 383 here and pg. 136 here which repeats a brief version of the same story.
  89. For the story of trying to to stop the phases of the moon by building a tower, a story the author says was “invented” by the tribe in question, see pg. 266 here.
  90. Among the stories I came across from people in southeast Asia, the Karen legends stood out. Some of the specifics are recorded by Francis Mason in the appendix to his book here. Stories he records include god creating men, woman being made from a rib, being deceived by a “dragon,” and eating fruit from a forbidden tree (including references to “Satan,” though this could just be a translation of their word “ku-plaw” which means “deceiver” as stated in the above source). There are also references to a flood in both that source and on pg. 208 here) where two brothers survived on a raft though the story doesn’t have much detail or a clear ending. There is also a bit that sounds like the Tower of Babel from Genesis where people once built a giant pagoda to reach heaven but the god came and scrambled their speech so they couldn’t understand one another as described on pg. 383 here (The original source is referenced in the footnote on pg. 383. I found that source via this page which took me to the original document in archive form where the story is found pg. 163-164 here. You can also find this story recorded on pg. 63 here as well as pgs. 135-136 here). All these similarities between Karen legends and the history in Genesis make it easy to suspect that somehow the stories the Karen tell are just modified versions of the stories from Genesis. See, for instance, pg. 383 here which suggests the Karen just put a veneer of legend over originally Christian stories and pgs. 269-271 here where, based on their migration legends, a common origin in China for these tribes and some contact with Jews or Christians is assumed. That source goes on to point out that there are other legends which don’t show much connection with Genesis and a history of some form of serpent worship (which I might suggest could be a memory of events in Eden, though that is only my speculation). According to one source (search “genesis” here to find the right section) even the original author, Francis Mason, speculated that the Karen might’ve been related to the “lost tribes of Israel.” In general then, given the similarity between the stories the Karen tell and what’s found in Genesis, there’s some probability that they had contact with either Jews or Christians. The problem, though, is what the Karen legends don’t talk about. The source above (here), after dismissing the influence of Christians in the region long ago, and listing stories from Genesis of “creation, fall, flood, and tower of Babel” as parallels found in Karen stories, concludes that the Karen probably weren’t in contact with Christian missionaries, because there is no reference to anything outside the Old Testament and no mention of Christ. This argument can be taken back even further, though. The most recent thing mentioned in that author’s list was the Tower of Babel, which would put the Karen legends paralleling Genesis only through Genesis chapter 11. Don Richardson in Eternity in Their Hearts (p. 74). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition points out that the Karen don’t reference either Abraham or Moses. This undermines the idea of a close relationship to Judaism or at least pushes back their break-away from Jewish history prior to the time of Abraham, which is very near to the time of the Tower of Babel. Ultimately, the above source here suggests early Chinese beliefs as a possibility (see later show notes) or some unknown missionary whose teachings were incorporated into Karen Mythology. It’s easy to be skeptical that these Karen legends are independent from Genesis and believe that they are just stories somehow copied from there. They do parallel the history in Genesis very closely with lots of similar details which makes it easy to wonder if Jews or Christians influenced them. If they did, though, the problem is how Christians or Jews influenced those stories and didn’t leave any other trace of Jewish or Christian stories among the Karen legends as well. On the other hand, if Christian or Jewish influence can’t explain where the Karen legends came from, it leaves open the possibility that their stories really are memories passed-down generation to generation since the days of Babel, though there’s not enough historical documentation to be confident of that.
  91. After a section describing legends about how languages came to be, one author argues that some stories (presumably flood stories) may just be memories of mountain lakes, long ago, that flooded their banks and covered the lowlands, drowning most of the people there, and dismisses the idea that there’s anything significant in them (see pg. 267-268 here. I suppose it is possible some flood legends could be memories of mountain lakes bursting, but it isn’t stated which mountain basins would have contained that amount of water or how the water got there. To me, if any of these legends are memories of mountain lakes bursting, I would guess those memories were generated after the main flood that once covered the world and was the source of the water that initially filled those mountain basins.
  92. Not all stories of language confusion sound like the history in Genesis. In one found on pg. 267 here languages are confused when three brothers get too excited trying to catch a rat. It doesn’t sound much like Genesis, but the detail of three brothers is an interesting coincidence. A story from the Lao people says everyone came from a melon as recorded on pgs. 285-286 here. That doesn’t sound much like Genesis either, though the mention of a high plateau could be a recollection of a time when water was in the lowlands, though that is only my speculation.
  93. Beyond Persian influence, religions even further away than Iran could have influenced India as well, with one author finding parallels between India and Norse mythology, pointing out that in the Rigveda, the “soma,” fire, and the sun are all referred to as birds with the eagle being the most notable. In Norse mythology, Odin makes himself a bird and flies with the mead to the realm of the gods according to pg. 291 here. In total, it’s not hard to see how migrating people could cause religions to mix with one another as discussed on pg. 350 here.
  94. For the Persians ruling parts of India, see Esther 1:1.

Previous: Next: Grandfathers of History, part 3 Grandfathers of History, part 5

View Details

Some evidence suggests the branches of the European family tree… go back to the same trunk.

View Details

As people moved further and further away from Babel… they still talked about where they came from.

All the quotes from the Bible for the main story were were taken from the English Standard Version(see ESV copyright here) or the New King James Version. For the other sources, including commentaries, websites, or articles, you can find links and references in the show notes below in the order they appeared. If you have any questions, there’s a link to contact me at the bottom of the page.

Show notes:


  1. In the audio and the show notes, I use the words “tradition,” “folklore,” “lore,” “story,” “legend,” and “tale” (and potentially other words I’ve forgotten) as synonyms.
  2. For stories of creation and memories of the Garden of Eden and the snake that I mentioned in previous episodes, see Episode 2 and Episode 7.
  3. For the suggestion that the name “Japheth” may come from the Aramaic word for “to extend” see here with reference to Genesis 9:27 as well as Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 133). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
  4. For the path Javan and his family might’ve taken on their way toward the Mediterranean coast of modern Turkey, there are a number of options. The specifics aren’t important. It is perhaps useful to note, though, that traveling along the course of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, while requiring an uphill trek into the highlands of eastern Turkey, would also provide continuous fresh water supplies for the journey. For the source of the Tigris and Euphrates in eastern Turkey as well as the elevations of various mountains in the country and the region’s propensity for earthquakes, see here. For the source of the Euphrates around 2,600ft of elevation (800m) see reference to the town of Keban here and it’s elevation on a map here (though I should note that these mountains might’ve still been rising and moving this soon after the Flood, and sea level may well have been different than today). For the length of the trip as “more than 500 miles” from the source of the Euphrates river, see straightline distance from Keban to the western part of Turkey here noting that they might’ve stopped anywhere in a number of regions that offered good farmland and water. For the weather being warmer along the shoreline and colder inland, see here.
  5. Across commentaries, there is broad agreement that Javan was the father of the Greeks. One commentary says that the Assyrians called the Greeks “Javanu” (see note on Genesis 10:2 here). In another, the name “Yunau” is mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions for a people to the west (see note on Genesis 10:1-2 here). There is also a reference in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association that the Assyrians called them “Jamnai.” The Greeks called themseves “Ionians” as referenced in note on Genesis 10:2, here. For “Javan” and “Ion” being likely the same word, see pg. 49 here as well as the original version of “Ion” and its similarity to “Javan” as written on pgs. 2 and 7 here. According to the note on Genesis 10:2, here the name “Ionian” appears to have referred to those in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) as well as others like the Macedonians. See also note on Genesis 10:2 here, note on Genesis 10:3 here, Josephus chapter 6 here,    Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers, Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 553). Review and Herald Publishing Association, and Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 10:2, note. Zondervan. See also here. For the Ionians settling the west coast of modern-day Turkey, see here.
  6. For Elishah’s name appearing in the city of Elis in Greece, see notes on Genesis 10:4, here, here and here. While the Romans gave the region the title “Greece,” (see here) the ancient Greeks called their country “Hellas” after Hellen (see here). Today the informal name for the country is “Ellas” or “Ellada” as mentioned here. There’s a chance that Elishah, Javan’s son, is the origin for “Ellas” as suggested by the notes on Genesis 10:4 here and here, but the common belief is that the name is from “Hellan” in Greek mythology. There’s also a chance that Hellen and Elishah were the same person as both are descendants of the main Flood survivor since Hellan was Deucalion’s son (see here and pg. 47, section 5, here and Elishah was Noah’s great-grandson, but connecting family trees from the Bible and Greek mythology is tenuous at best (see later show note discussion). Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 195). Appendix 3. Kindle Edition argues that the name Elishah is the origin of “Hellenic,” a descriptor of people from Greece.
  7. For the suggestion that Elishah gave his name to Cyprus, note that early cuneiform sources refer to Cyprus as “Alashia” while Egyptian sources call it “Isy” or “Alasia” according to Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 171). Pacific Press Publishing Association. Other mentions include Sicily and Carthage (see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 10:4, note. Zondervan and note on Genesis 10:4, here), though the latter seems unlikely (see comments here disputing the Carthage link and Episode 17 for more on the Phoenician history of Carthage). Ezekiel 27:7 references Elishah as related to the coasts, as referenced in the note on Genesis 10:4, here (the word in the original language is translated as either “islands” or “coastlands” according to the lexicon). See also Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association and Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 326). Review and Herald Publishing Association who reference Sardinia as a possible settlement location and here that suggests that Sicily might be the best connection (though that final source appears to suggest that these names might not be Javan’s actual sons but references to Greek colonies, so the conclusion of Sicily should perhaps be taken with some skepticism).
  8. Josephus in chapter 6 here connects Elishah to the Aeolians, one of the four main divisions of the ancient Greeks (see pg. 50 here
  9. For the connection between Elishah and the Elysian fields, see notes on Genesis 10:4, here and here. For a summary of the Elysian fields, see here.
  10. In several places in the names in Genesis 10 the word used for a son is in the plural form, meaning it really refers to a tribe. This is the case with “Kittim” which was probably not the name of Javan’s son, but of a tribe descended from Javan’s son whom one scholar suggests might have been named “Keth” with descendants known as the “Kittim.” For more, see notes on Genesis 10:4 here and here.
  11. “Kittim” is likely a plural name as given by the “-im” ending as mentioned in notes on Genesis 10:4 here and here. This same principle applies to the “Dodanim” mentioned shortly and is described as a plural in the concordance entry here.
  12. For the link between Cyprus, the city of “Kition” or “Kitium” and the “Kittim” see notes on Genesis 10:4 here and here as well as Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers (who calls “Kition” the old capitol city), note on Genesis 10:3 in Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 108–123). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press., Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 10:4, note. Zondervan, chapter 6 here and Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 171). Pacific Press Publishing Association. See also Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
  13. As an example (though others could be found) of the inconsistent nature of Greek mythology (and likely other mythologies as well) note that Prometheus is listed as the character who “moulded men out of water and earth” here, but that source, in the footnote, goes on to mention that in the earliest versions of the legend, Prometheus is a helper to mankind, not their creator.
  14. For the dates when they lived see Hesiod and Homer. Given the gap in time between people leaving Babel around 2250 BC (see show notes and details in the last episode) and the 700s BC is about 1500 years (give or take) there was plenty of time for stories of the past to be handed down with mistakes, changed on purpose, and for fiction to get added in as if it was fact. Perhaps because of this, the parallels you find are snippets rather than consistently similar family histories. Even in the encyclopedia entry for Hesiod here it states that Hesiod and Homer are some of the earliest examples we have of Greek writing, but even Hesiod’s poetry could have been built on a long history of oral traditions.
  15. For details on the Garden of the Hesperides and the record of the snake or dragon coiled in the tree, see show notes on Episode 5 as well as Hesiod’s comments here. Other references are from Euripides, a greek playwright from the 400s BC (see here). His descriptions of the tree of golden leaves and apples with a dragon wrapped around it can be found here and his description of the Garden of the Hesperides referenced on pg. 25 here points to pg. 39 of a translation of Euripides’ play Hippolytus here with the accompanying note on pg. 83 here verifying that the poetic reference refers to the Garden of the Hesperides. It’s true, these details come from a plays written by Euripides, (see here) but I think it’s unlikely that Euripides would describe the Garden of the Hesperides as “God’s quiet garden by the sea” in a play if it wasn’t thought of that way in Greek lore. The reference that Zeus was the king of the gods in Greek lore can be found here and that he met his wife Hera in the Garden of the Hesperides is found in the same pg. 83 comment referenced above.
  16. For the background of Pandora as the first woman see reference here. For a summary of the story of Pandora, and the meaning of Epimetheus, her husband, as “afterthought” see here.
  17. In Greek mythology there are three different stories of floods as outlined on pg. 157 (and the pages thereafter) as described here. According to that source, the first of the three floods happened to Ogyges and covered the whole world (though according to the footnote on pg. 158, that description comes from the ~5th century AD poet Nonnus so it may or may not be accurate), the second and most well-known flood story from Greece involves Deucalion with various details that, even in the earliest versions, show some similarity to the history from Genesis (see later show note for details). The third flood story involves a man named Dardanus, and it is discussed later.
  18. It’s hard to know where the flood stories from Greek lore fit into history. Do you believe the details about the whole world being flooded and, in the case of Deucalion’s story, the need to repopulate the world after the flood (something you wouldn’t need to do if it was only a local event) that make these stories sound like memories of Noah’s Flood or do you believe the dates, and the fact that there was more than one of these floods, that make it sound like something local? Various ancient historians give dates for these Greek floods. For instance, the Roman scholar Varro, who lived around 100 BC, put Ogyges’ flood shortly after 2136 BC and Deucalion’s flood around 100 years later (see footnote on pg. 158 here). Julius Africanus, who lived around 200 AD, gave 1796 BC as Ogyges’ flood. The Christian historian Eusebius, who lived in around 300 AD, put Ogyges flood 1200 years after Noah’s with Deucalion’s coming a further 250 years after that (or around 1248 BC and 998 BC if you use Jones’ date for the Flood (see Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pgs. 278) Master Books). (Most of these dates come from pgs. 158 - 159 in the above source, but Frazer evidently misquotes Eusebius as he says Ogyges’ flood occurred 2200 years after Noah’s flood but pg. 21 of the translation of Eusebius’ work gives 1200 years which I used instead. I did use Frazer’s dates for Varro and Julius Africanus and I am assuming they are being correctly quoted). You can see another summary with additional possible dates for these floods from Greek history on pgs. 438-439 here, but in every case, it’s hard to know how dependable these dates are. They are very specific, which makes it appear they are based on some sort of historical record the ancient scholars had access to that we’ve otherwise lost, but their histories were also written down around 1000-2000 years after the floods they describe. Beyond the three specific floods described above, Plato has a couple of other references to catastrophes. The first in Timaeus sections 21-23 here isn’t terribly useful other than a reference to Deucalion as it refers to someone from Egypt telling of many floods rather than a Greek source or a Greek tradition. The second, in Critias sections 111-112 here mentions a 9000 year history and says “when earthquakes occurred simultaneously with the third of the disastrous floods which preceded the destructive deluge in the time of Deucalion.” If Plato is correct, it would suggest that Deucalion’s flood was at least the fourth noteworthy flood by Plato’s reasoning and Aristotle says that even the flood in Deucalion’s time was a local event, (see here). Frazer, meanwhile, thinks Ogyges’ flood might’ve been a local event around a fluctuating lake (see starting on pg. 160 here and Deucalion’s floods might’ve just a myth based on the observation of a gorge (see pg. 174 here), but then he dismisses the history of a worldwide Flood as given in Genesis and gives his belief that such stories are construed memories of local events or myths (see pgs. 342-361 here). In summary, the suggeestion that the floods of Ogyges and Deucalion covered the whole world (see earlier show note reference for Ogyges and later show note about Deucalion for details) makes them appear to be memories of Noah’s Flood while, on the other hand, the Bible only describes one worldwide Flood (with no evidence of others before or after) and the dates given by the historians place the Greek flood stories later in history than the time line of Noah’s Flood. Given the evidence, I’m inclined to believe that the Greek stories are potentially memories of people involved in local floods that happened in the years after the Flood described in Genesis, but with recollections from that global Flood mixed in to those later stories. Regarding the floods of Ogyges and Deucalion, the notes on Genesis 7:19 and Genesis 7:23 here suggest that stories have roots in the memory of Noah’s flood.
  19. It is not uncommon to connect the Greek legend of Deucalion with the history of Noah from Genesis. Note, for instance, that Deucalion is referred to as the Greek “Noah” here and that there are parallels between the Greek branches of the family tree on pgs. 521-522 here and the genealogy in Genesis 10. There is also the note on Genesis 7:19 here where the story of Deucalion is explicity considered a memory of the Flood from Genesis. The earliest version of the story of Deucalion’s flood, from the best I can tell, comes from Pindar here. He doesn’t give many details about the flood other than it overwhelming the earth, Zeus draining it away, and Deucalion and Pyrrha coming down from a mountain named Parnassus and creating a race of people from stones from whom the Greeks were descended. Pindar’s details have the benefit of coming earlier in history than the conquests of Alexander the Great which might tend to mix Greek legends together with those from other cultures Alexander conquered. While a ship isn’t mentioned in Pindar’s words, a commentary on Pindar written by Hellanicus who lived around the same time as Pindar references a ship when stating that it landed not on Mount Parnassus, but on Othrys (see pg. 147 here. Later more detailed versions of the Deucalion flood story come from various sources including The Library by Apollodorus, who lived around 100 BC, or Pseudo-Apollodorus (see here and here, who may have lived 200-300 years later). In any case, that later version (see here) suggests that the flood came because men behaved in an evil way toward Zeus (though see more on the background and its versions and caveats on pgs. 390-395 here), but before the Flood came, Prometheus, a cousin of Zeus (see a later show note with the genealogy) warned his son Deucalion to build a chest. Deucalion built it, loaded it with food, and got in with his wife Pyrrha, the daughter of Pandora. Zeus poured down rain and flooded most of Greece so that the only people who survive are those who climbed high up into the mountains, but then the mountains split and the water poured out and flooded the rest of the world. Deucalion spent nine days in his boat and then the rain stopped and he landed on mount Parnassus in Greece. Deucalion offers sacrifices to Zeus and he and Pyrrha are instructed to throw stones over their shoulders. The stones turn into men and women and the world is repopulated. In the similarly late version offered by Lucian and Plutarch given on pgs. 153-155 here there are various additional details including the animals coming to Deucalion by God’s help, remaining friendly toward humans during the Flood, and the detail of a dove being sent out, but Frazer on pgs. 153-155 here (and included on pg. 87 here which is a repeated and expanded version of Frazer’s work) not unreasonably notes that these details may come from the story in Genesis or the Babylonian version of the Flood. To me, that is plausible given that Lucian’s details come from the region of the Euphrates frequented by both Babylonians who would’ve known their own legends (see Episode 17) and Israelites familiar with Genesis, though its worth taking into account the comment on pg. 254 here that Lucian was an enemy of the Jews and wouldn’t have been inclined to record a story of the Flood that would support Jewish belief but instead offers the story with the perspective that it is from Greek history. Even so, given the comment in the note at the end of chapter 8 here that points out that while Pindar first gave the story of Deucalion, it was later given by a series of authors but with so many similarities that it is difficult to argue that it hadn’t been influenced by the story in Genesis, in the audio I only used details found in accounts from Pindar and Hellanicus which came prior to the conquests of Alexander the Great.
  20. In another version of the end of the story of Deucalion, Zeus told Prometheus and Athena to form shapes of people out of mud and then called for wind to breathe into them and bring them to life. To me, this sounds like a memory of creation confused with repopulating the world after the Flood. I left it out of the audio, though, as the original source, found on pg. 155 here points back to Stephanus Byzantius, a professor in Constantinople in the 500s AD (see pg. 333 here). Considering the extent to which Christian influence, and therefore the history on Genesis, would’ve pervaded Constantinople by that point, it is hard to know whether forming people from mud and the wind breathing life into them is a genuine ancient story, or a later mixture of Greek and Christian history.
  21. There’s a speculative connection between the Greek figure of Nannacus and Enoch on pg. 155 here including the legend that Nannacus lived for at least 300 years while Enoch lived for 365 and when people asked when Nannacus would die, they were told that when he died all men would perish with him. The author of that source mentions but dismisses the connection between Nannacus and Enoch, but, as for me, I wonder if Nannacus is a memory of both Enoch, whose example for God likely made him a pariah in his day, and Methuselah (Enoch’s son), who lived for a very long time and died in the year of the Flood, a yeaer when nearly everyone else died, too. For more on what Methuselah’s name might’ve meant, see show notes on Episode 12.
  22. You can also get the idea that the ancient Greeks understood the idea of storms including floods being sent because of the wickedness of men as Gaster on pg. 92 here mentions section 16.384-92 in Homer’s Illiad that is trying to describe the roar of horses and uses the imagery of Zeus senting violent rain because of men giving crooked judgments and removing justice. Homer describes the storm as one where rivers flow in flood and erode the hills with deep gorges and destroy farm fields.
  23. For more about “Iris” the goddess connected to rainbows and peace in Greek mythology, see article here as well as note on Genesis 9:13 here that references both speaking and peace in connection with Iris and further reference on Genesis 9:17 here.
  24. Admittedly, unearthing ancient history is confusing. What we have is fragmentary and there are different arguments about when it was written and by whom. The Sibyls, the Sibylline books, and the Sibylline oracles are a good example of that. According to the stories we have, a Sibyl was essentially an ancient prophetess dated to around 500 BC (see here). The Sibylline books were books sold to the Romans around the same time period (see here) while the Sibylline Oracles were later inventions by Jewish and Christian writers that were supposedly written between 150 BC and 180 AD (see here). When someone references the saying of a “Sibyl” therefore, what are they referring to? The sayings of one of the ancient Sibyls or something that came later, effectively as a forgery? Josephus references a “Sibyl” in confirming the story of the Tower of Babel and the confusion of languages (see Chapter 4.3 here). Is he referencing something that might be 200 years old in his day, or something older? Alexander Polyhistor), who lived and wrote around 70 BC, also referenced the Sibyl as mentioned on pg. 75 here where his statement is handed down from Syncellus. Was Alexander Polyhistor referring back to something only ~80 years old, that he could have reason to suspect was a recent invention or something older? Cooper argues that Alexander Polyhistor referred to the older “Sibyl” (see Cooper, Bill. The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis. Chapter 10. Kindle Edition) but the note on Genesis 11:4, here makes the suggestion that the Greek and Roman authors were copying their story from the Babylonians who were giving a version of the story from Genesis. That said, figuring out which Sibyl is meant isn’t a requirement. The depth of support for an ancient memory of the Flood and Babel rests on other stories. For example, if you go back a page in the earlier link to “Cory’s Ancient Fragments”, forward a paragraph in Cooper’s book, and forward a sentence in Josephus, they all mention Hestaieus, who, as best I can tell, is is Hestaieus of Miletus, who lived around 500 BC and is quoted as saying that some priests migrated to Babylon but had to flee when multiple languages sprang up and people had to disperse and make settlements elsewhere.
  25. While there’s merit, in my estimation, to the idea that world mythology often holds a grain of truth buried at its origins, there’s also some challenges. Start with the above reference from Hestaieus on pgs. 74-25 here. Hestaieus references the priests of “Enyalion Jove.” “Jove” is another name for the god “Jupiter” (see here), the chief god of the Romans (see here) while “Enyalius” was essentially the same as the Greek god “Ares” (see here), a god of war. The bit we have from Hestiaeus comes through Josephus, and it starts with “The priests who escaped…” but doesn’t say where they escaped from or give any other background, it’s challenging to understand the context for his comment. Combine that with the fact that Copper plausibly connects the etymology of “Jupiter” with “Japheth” (see Cooper, Bill. The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis. Chapter 30. Kindle Edition.), and I wonder, why would Japheth have priests serving him while he was still likely alive during the period preceding the events that took place at Babel? Was Hestiaeus remembering the story of the confusion of languages, but given that almost 2000 years had elapsed, was he mixing it up with details from other stories which also might’ve been ancient history by his day? Given the small fragment we have without any background, we can’t say. Working with fragments of hand-me-down history comes with uncertainty, but it also illustrates more clearly how well preserved the record in Genesis is compared to the bits-and-pieces of history we get elsewhere.
  26. For the reference to to Greek giants Otus and Ephialtes trying to pile mountains up to attack the gods in heaven, see Homer’s Odyssey here. In that passage, it only references Apollos as the son of Zeus and Leto. For clarity, pg. 135 here makes it clear that this is a reference to Apollo or Artemis as there are evidently different versions of the story.
  27. In Genesis, Javan was Japheth’s son (see Genesis 10:2. Greek genealogy isn’t so neat. Iapetos (Japheth) is Ion’s (Javan’s) ancestor, but there are four generations between them (see later show note that gives the details of that section of Greek genealogy). For this name connection between “Japheth” and “Iapetos” despite the muddled genealogy that has Iapetos as Deucalion’s grandfather, see here, pgs. 2 and 7 here, the note on Genesis 10:1-2 here (who also spells “Iapetus” as “Japetus”), note on Genesis 10:2, here (who spells it “Japetus” as well), and comment by Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 133). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
  28. As another perhaps less clear parallel, the note on Genesis 10:8, here suggested a connection between Nimrod in Genesis and Orion, “the hunter” in Greek lore, the note on Genesis 10:8, here dismissed that idea as “fanciful.”
  29. For a parallel to Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the the three brothers who were all descendants of one man and inherited the world, Homer’s Illiad has Poseidon saying that the world was divided between himself and his two brothers, with each taking a piece: Zeus would take charge of the sky, Hades would rule the dead, and Poseidon would be lord of the sea, with all three brothers sharing the land. The idea isn’t the same as Shem, Ham, and Japheth settling in different parts of the world, but it is interesting that Homer had this same idea of three brothers inheriting control of the earth. For more, see reference found on pg. 252 here The author in that link calls Poseidon “Neptune. “The section of the Illiad in question can be found here. The author connects this division to Shem, Ham, and Japheth inheriting the world in Genesis. This could be, though the connection is mainly to the idea of three brothers taking charge of the world rather than any geographic connection on where each of those brothers went.
  30. While you can’t always trust the dates from ancient historians (see for instance the variety of dates associated with the floods faced by Ogyges and Deucalion in earlier show note), it is interesting that Eusebius states that Eglialeus was the first king of the Greeks on pg. 51 here with a timeline that gives 2089 BC as the start of Eglialeus’ reign comes Ussher, James (2006-11-01). The Annals of the World (Kindle Locations 608-609). Master Books. Kindle Edition putting the start of Greek monarchy within around 100 years of the dispersion from Babel if Eusebius’ dates are right.
  31. For the dates of the dispersion from the tower of Babel, see Episode 16 for the timeline).
  32. For the reference to one of Javan’s descendants as the “Dodanim” see Genesis 10:4. The same tribe is called the “Rodanim’ in 1 Chronicles 1:7. Evidently the letter shape for “R” and “D” is similar according to note on Genesis 10:4, here.
  33. For the link between the “Rodanim” and the island of Rhodes, see notes on Genesis 10:4, here and here. See also here and Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers., Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 10:4, note. Zondervan., and note on Genesis 10:4 in Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 108–123). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. See also Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association and Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 291). Review and Herald Publishing Association. There is also an interesting minor view which suggests that “Rodanim” might be linked to France because it was once known as Rhodanus (see note on Genesis 10:4, here with a similar comment here but this appears to be an uncommon conclusion.
  34. For the names scholars have found related to the “Dodanim,” see “Dodona” in central Greece and the “Dardani” a tribe who lived on the west coast of Greece in Illyria (see notes on Genesis 10:4 here and here). The same location comes up connecting “Dodanim” to “Dardania” here which references “Moesia” in the region around modern Serbia and is supported by Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers which puts them in Illyricum, though there are other regions toward Turkey that are linked with “Dodanim” as well (see later show note).
  35. For people in Greece worshiping Jupiter Dodanaeus, whose oracle was in Dodona, see note on Genesis 10:4, here and here where each author connects “Dodonaeus” to “Dodanim.” For the etymology of “Jupiter” meaning “heavenly father” see pg 430 entry for “Jupiter” here. There is also mention of “diu” being “bright” (see here which would make “bright father” as best I can tell. There is also the suggestion given by Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 195). Appendix 3 and (p. 241) Appendix 11. Kindle Edition that the name “Jupiter” comes from “Japheth,” with supporting details that appear plausible, though I wasn’t able to find another source the made the same connection.
  36. For the names scholars have found related to the “Dodanim,” see “Dodona” in central Greece and the “Dardani” a tribe who lived on the west coast of Greece in Illyria (see notes on Genesis 10:4 here and here). The same location comes up connecting “Dodanim” to “Dardania” here which references “Moesia” in the region around modern Serbia and is supported by Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers which puts them in Illyricum, though there are other regions toward Turkey that are linked with “Dodanim” as well (see later show note).
  37. In the earlier section, I left off a discussion of Dardanus’ flood in comparing it to the Flood of Noah as I didn’t find any references to the flood Dardanus faced reaching the tops of the mountains, but only of it covering the lowlands. Based on that and other details, of all three flood stories, it appears most likely to be a record of a local event as discussed later in this episode.
  38. For one version of the legend of Dardanus’ flood, see pg. 163 here. Frazer spends considerable space giving a geological argument for why Dardanus’ home valley might have a tendency to flood, noting that the valley has frequently been either dry or flooded over the centuries depending on subterranean conditions (see pgs. 163-167 in above source) before concluding that such a flood may be the reason for Dardanus’ emigration and settlement elsewhere. This could be, but it doesn’t explain the additional flooding of the island of Samothrace that Frazer goes on to explain as an alternate version of the Dardanus legend on pg. 167. For Samothrace being previously known as Dardania, see comment from Pausanias who lived in the 2nd century AD and describes the name change here. For Arcadia being a central region of Greece, see here. Frazer refers to Mt. Ida on pg. 167, but it may be a mountain range more than a single peak based on the reference here. For the reason Dardanus would be on the island of Samothrace prior to the flood, Greek legends suggest it was due to fleeing his home in central Greece after killing his brother (see here).
  39. For the location of Samothrace, see the map here.
  40. For the modern theory about why the Black and Mediterranean Seas were isolated from one another, the way they are believed to have joined, and a comment about the ambiguity of how fast the joining happened (either a slow link or a catastrophic dam-failure type flood) see introduction of paper here.
  41. For the Samothracian local legend that the Black Sea flooded into the Mediterranean and caused a flood there, see pg. 168 here. The original reference is to Diodorus Siculus’ Library book 5, section 47 found on pgs. 227-231 here.
  42. As with the Samothracian legend Frazer relates, Frazer also mentions, on pg. 171-174 here, that the story of the mountains of Thessaly parting during the Flood Deucalion endured could be related to observations of erosion in a gorge and the belief that the gorge was made when the mountains ruptured to release the water stored in a high elevation lake. If so, elements of Deucalion’s story might well be human memories of one of the mini-catastrophes that would’ve occurred all around the world as the earth reached a new equilibrium after the Flood. Given a worldwide Flood, it would not be surprising at all if there were high mountain lakes that burst through their walls in the decades and centuries after the Flood, some of which humans might’ve witnessed or had to survive, but this is my speculation. Regardless, there are still elements of the Deucalion story that refer to water covering the world and the need to repopulate the world afterward that also imply a global extent to the flood.
  43. Though I couldn’t find clear evidence stating which sea was higher when the straits between the Black and Mediterranean seas were formed, but one interesting thing did come up. Because the Black Sea gets a lot of fresh water from the Danube and Volga rivers that flow into it, it has a lower salinity than the Mediterranean Sea, and when you get to the straits that connect to the Mediterranean, there are actually two currents of water, one of less salty water flowing from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean on the surface, and down about 32-64 feet another current of saltier water flowing into the Black Sea from the Mediterranean. You can read more about it here and here. For why salt water has a higher density than freshwater, see the summary answer here.
  44. Further arguments in support of the straits connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean can be found on pg. 252 here when discussing possible migrations of groups up toward Britain.
  45. For the geology emphasis on long time frames that began with Charles Lyell in the around 1830 when he published his book Principles of Geology, see the article outlining his work here.
  46. I mentioned connections between areas in western Greece on the Adriatic sea that might be connected to “Dodanim” and “Dardanus” in earlier show note, but there are also locations on the western coast of Turkey that have links to the name Dardanus, too. Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 291). Review and Herald Publishing Association connects the Dodanim to the Dardanians living along the northwestern coast of modern Turkey. This is supported by the above reference from Pausanias that Samothrace used to be known as Dardania (see earlier show note) with Samothrace right near Turkey. Furthermore, Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 171). Pacific Press Publishing Association mentions Egyptian records that refer to the “Dardanayu” in records of geography of the Aegean sea and “land of the Dardanya” in a list of Hittite allies, with the Hittites in Asia minor (see here). Given the early history, long lifespan, and the placement of “Dodanim” as a forefather of much of the world’s population, there’s no reason to limit Dodanim’s reach to a single geographic area, especially if he migrated at some point during his life, perhaps during the flood recorded in Greek lore. For other links scholars have given, including connecting Dodanim to southern Italy, see note on Genesis 10:4, here.
  47. For the link between Dardanus and the name of the Dardanelles straits, see here where the name was given after a treaty was signed near the city of Dardanus. The link between the Dardanelles straits between the Aegean and Black Seas and the Dodanim of Genesis 10 is also mentioned by Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 195). Appendix 3. Kindle Edition.
  48. For the connection between Dardanus and Troy, see here (which also notes that in Virgil’s Aeneid Dardanus originally came from Italy) as well as pg. 167 here. See also Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 171). Pacific Press Publishing Association. For Dardanus’ relationship to Tros and Tros’ founding of Troy, see from 3.12.1 to 3.12.2 here. For the city of Troy also being known as “Illium” see here.
  49. For Homer and Virgil as the source of stories about Troy, see pr 454 here. For summaries of Homer’s poems see starting pg. 568 for the Illiad and pgs. 674-675 for the Odyssey. For a summary of the Aeneid, see show now below. For Virgil telling of the destruction of Troy and the things that happened after, see summary here and a translation of Virgil starting at book 2 here.
  50. For summary of the Aeneid see entry for “Aeneas” on pg. 257 here.
  51. In the Aeneid, Aeneas interacts with various other people, so there’s no claim that he was the first settler of Italy. Unrelated to the story of Aeneas, scholars have suggested that the “Kittim,” another tribe descended from Japheth that I discussed earlier, might’ve also colonized Italy and Sicily and Macedonia. See for instance, comments in notes on Genesis 10:4, here, here, here and Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 648). Review and Herald Publishing Association who discusses the expansion of the term “Kittim” over time to eventually include anti-Jewish powers regardless of Greek or Roman origin.
  52. For Aeneas being remembered as forefather of the Romans, with Romulus the seventeenth generation from Aeneas, see pgs. 143 and 145 here. That record was written by Dionysius of Halicarnassus a Roman historian who wrote a history of Rome around the same time as Virgil wrote the Aeneid.
  53. For the Aeneid being written during the early days of the Roman empire, see reference on pg. 391 here to when Virgil lived and reference on pg. 888 here to the reign of Augustus, the first Roman emperor.
  54. It’s reasonable to suggest that Virgil was making up the story of Aeneas, and the note on pg. 392 here points out that Virgil’s main sources for the Aeneid were Homer’s Illiad and Odyssey, though it also says that Virgil used other sources as well. For examples of the story of Aeneas or ancestors from Troy predating Virgil, see show note below.
  55. As evidence that the Aeneid shouldn’t be taken as history, it’s worth noting that Aeneas’ adventure at Carthage would’ve been tricky if Aeneas traveled from Troy before Carthage was founded as suggested by Editor’s note 132 here or in the footnotes on pgs. 160-161 here.
  56. The best list I could find of the origins of the Roman belief that they were descended from Aeneas, a refugee from Troy, is found in the paper here. It outlines the fact that there were many stories between Greece and Rome mentioning that an appendix to Hesiod’s work refers to one of Odysseus’ children as “Latinus” leading some to believe that Odysseus was the forefather of the Romans (see pg. 65) while Hellanicus around 430 BC suggests Aeneas (see pg. 66). In either case, there was a belief that they descended from the Greeks with the Trojan origin story gaining more acceptance among the Romans. See full article above for details of the discussion. In addition, see writings by later Roman historian Livy who tells here of the fall of Troy and migration of Aeneas.
  57. For the Roman liberality with respect to Troy, see comment from Livy in Book 38, chapter 39, verses 9-10 here. The book that referenced this section from Livy suggested that Troy did not have to pay taxes according to comments at end of pg. 326 and top of pg. 327 here, with this story occurring around 190 BC, well before Virgil, according to note on pg. 326.
  58. You can see references to Julius Caesar’s claim to be descended from Aeneas here as well as a reference here by to the “Julian” house.
  59. Even in Livy’s day, he wouldn’t vouch for whether the legend of Trojan origins was true but suggests they belonged more to poetry than history and only reported the stories without arguing whether they were true or false as mentioned here.
  60. For the suggestion that Romans took Greek stories and adapted them to their own purposes, but that the stories themselves were originally Greek, see pg. 202 here which admits as much, but goes on to argue that there are still parts of Roman mythology which offer valuable insights into the Romans. You can see evidence of the parallel gods between the Greek and Roman cultures in the list here.
  61. For the names of the Greek and Roman metalworking gods, see here. In linking Vulcan and Tubal-Cain see pg. 252 here, links Vulcan to Tubal-Cain    without the “Bil-kan” bridge between the names (though the author calls Vulcan a Greek rather than a Roman god). This idea also comes up when discussing the Chaldean fire-god “Bil-kan,” who might be linked to both Tubal-Cain, and “Vulcan” see pgs. 56, 60, and 296 in George Smith’s “Chaldean Genesis” here. This book is nearly 150 years old, but I couldn’t find an update to Smith’s translation to see if the name “Bil-kan” translated from two Babylonian characters (see pg. 196) was still the agreed translation. (Cooper also notes this link on pg. 2 of his article here but has Smith’s book in his bibliography so it’s likely not an independent source.) Given that lack of information, I can’t tell whether there’s simply nothing further to say on the subject than what Smith wrote 150 years ago, whether modern scholarship doesn’t want to discuss the connection between names in mythology and names in the history in Genesis, or if the the name “Bil-kan” for the Babylonian fire-god was re-translated to something else since Smith first published his work. See also pg. 24 of the article here also mentions a Canaanite god who invented metalworking and is connected to Hephaestus, though the name does not have an apparent etymological link to these other names.
  62. For connections between Nimrod and Bacchus, see notes on Genesis 10:8 and 10:9, here which also draws other possible parallels between Nimrod and Bacchus.
  63. The story of men having one language and living in peace before Mercury changed their languages and caused them to argue is given by the Roman writer Hyginus with a translation available on pg. 147 here.
  64. Tarshish may have first settled in Cilicia in modern-day Turkey and gave his name to the city of Tarsus, where Paul was born (see Acts 22:3) as is suggested by notes on Genesis 10:4 here, here, and here. Josephus is probably the origin of this link between Tarshish and to Tarsus. You can find his comment the sentence that includes “Tharsus to the Tharsians,” here. Beyond Clicia, others often trace the migration further with some linking them to the Tyrseni or Tyrrheni tribe as mentioned here and the note on Genesis 10:4, here. For the Tyrrheni as potential ancestors of the Etruscans, see here. Scholars either dismiss Tarsus or eventually trace them to Tartessus in Spain in notes on Genesis 10:4 here, here(who mentions Herodotus describing Greek settlements at Tartessus), here, and here. The identity of Tarshish as Tartessus is supported by Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 171). Pacific Press Publishing Association as well as Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers who also mentions that “ships of Tarshish” might be a term meant to describe any ship that was able to undertake a long voyage. The identity of the city of Tarshish with modern Tartessos is also supported by Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association and Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (pp. 1089–1090). Review and Herald Publishing Association with the latter also linking the name “Tarshish” to an Akkadian word related to refining metals. The link at here is more generic and suggests that the name might refer to many things including the European coasts to the west of Greece. For an overview of what is known from ancient sources that mention Tartessos, see here and here that mentions the Guadalquivir river. For a further overview of archeological research in the region around the Guadalquivir river, see article here.
  65. Figuring out what to believe about the history of Britain is a bit of a challenge, but to the best of my research, there are a handful of sources useful to the investigation. Among the authors of historical material are Gildas (a British church leader from around 500 AD) and Geoffrey of Monmouth (an English bishop from the 1100s AD). Whether these records can be called history, though, is up for debate. For instance, the encyclopedia reference to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s work Historia regum Britanniae is specifically called “fictional.” On the other hand, Gildas’ work is considered history (see here. There are dedicated scholars, though, who take different viewpoints. The first I came across was Bill Cooper who wrote the book “After the Flood” that delved into the topic in detail. In chapters 2 and 4 of that book, Cooper gives arguments in support of Geoffrey of Monmouth. Specifically in at the end of chapter 2 Cooper outlines the background (and in chapter 4 he discusses in detail) a manuscript once known as the Tysilio Chronicle as well as a similar paper on the manuscript and its impact on British history presented by the archeologist Flinders Petrie in 1917 (see Petrie’s paper here). To the best of my understanding Cooper argues that this Tysilio Chronicle, is a book Geoffrey of Monmouth translated from an archaic British dialect to Welsh (see end of chapter 2) and that Geoffrey’s reference to a “very old book” used as a source for his more famous “Historia” was referring to this Tysilio Chronicle (see a translation of Geoffrey’s comment from the “Historia” at the start of the paper here). Petrie notes that scholars often consider the Tysilio Chronicle an abbreviated form of Geoffrey’s “Historia,” but upon comparison, he determined that it was more likely that the Tysilio was one of Geoffrey’s original sources that Geoffrey then expanded upon it (see discussion on pg. 2 of Petrie’s article at above link and note in Cooper’s “Abbreviations” section on pg. vi here). With this background established, today the Tysilio Chronicle can be seen in the Welsh manuscript in a digital scan here (called Jesus College MS. 111) and can be read in English in either the translation completed by Cooper here or in a translation published by a pastor Peter Roberts in 1811 found online here that both Cooper (in a footnote of chapter 4) and Petrie reference. (In comparing the translations, it appears that Cooper worked from a different manuscript than Roberts as the prologues are different at the start of the translations. Furthermore, Roberts includes a parallel translation of other manuscript along with the Tysilio (see subtitle on title page here such that the Tysilio translation is at the top of the page before a break, the center section is a parallel passage from another manuscript, and the footnotes are in the third section at the bottom of the page. Thus, in comparing Cooper and Roberts, only the top section of Roberts is found in Cooper’s translation.) With the scholars Cooper, Petrie, and Roberts introduced, it is perhaps not surprising that they all bring their own opinions to bear on the topic of British history and what is more or less reliable in the available manuscripts. Cooper defends Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Tysilio Chronicle (Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 43). Chapter 4. Kindle Edition.), Petrie suggests that the Tysilio Chronicle is valuable and that Geoffrey of Monmouth’s other work is an expansion of it (see pg. 2 in above link), and Roberts is of the opinion that the Tysilio Chronicle was really written by Gildas, and the material attributed to Gildas by historians was a forgery intending to promote the aims of the Catholic church in Britain during the middle ages (On this topic, Roberts’ appears to be a minority, though very few scholars discuss the Tysilio Chronicle so there aren’t many opinions about it. For what it is worth, Roberts does offer reasonable support for his opinion starting in Appendix 1 on pg. 191 here). With all those opinions swirling, and without taking into account what I imagine is a number of other scholars who address the topic in one form or another, my best guess is that the Tysilio Chronicle is a legitimate translation of an older document completed by Geoffrey of Monmouth (Cooper’s argument) and that it was Geoffrey of Monmouth’s main source for his “Historia” (Petrie’s conclusion). It is not critical to determine whether Gildas wrote the chronicle (Roberts’ speculation) or some other author, as the reliability of the record would depend on the evidence in the contents of the chronicle itself. With that out of the way, in summary, the Tysilio Chronicle purports to tell the history of Britain going back to Brutus, an exile from pre-Roman Italy who travels first to Greece, frees a number of former Trojans from Greek slavery, takes a fleet of ships, traverses the Mediterranean sea, has various escapades, and ultimately settles on a mostly uninhabited island of Albion which he renames Britain after himself (see starting pg. 1 here in Roberts’ translation and beginning here in Cooper’s translation). From there the chronicle continues to record the kings and events down through the centuries including the Roman invasion of Britain under Julius Caesar and on to around the year 700 AD (see pg. 190 in Roberts here and pg. 68 in Cooper here. Given this summary, Petrie argues that the chronicle is a reliable native British record of their history going back to at least the time of the Roman invasion, and notes a number of details in the record of that invasion that appear to come from the viewpoint of Caesar’s enemies, as they are not details Caesar would know and they aren’t mentioned in Caesar’s account of his invasions (see starting pg. 3 of Petrie). Petrie then suggests that the legend of Brutus was a local invention probably dating to around the time of the Roman emperor Claudius as a local legend inspired by the Roman Aeneas epic (see pg. 10 of Petrie). In comparison, Roberts goes further, suggesting that the legend of Brutus is more likely to be history dating perhaps to the end of the 2nd Punic war around 200 BC (see here and suggests it might’ve been inspired by a colony of settlers known as the Brutii who once lived in Italy with a number of references to other records from Spain that might provide support to this concept, including the idea that the settlers were originally of Greek heritage (see starting pg. 269 with the timeline of the end of the 2nd Punic war as the date of their emigration to Britain on pg. 273). (It is interesting to me that the Brutii are recorded on pg. 269 as having emigrated originally from the island of Samothrace given Samothrace’s earlier connection to Dardanus and Troy which perhaps provides a link between the Brutii and the Trojans, though this is only my speculation.) Finally, Cooper pushes the date back even further, giving Brutus’ emigration to Britain as 1104 BC, I assume based on adding up the chronology of kings given by the chronicle (see “After the Flood” chapter 5 and Appendix 7), a chronology Roberts traces back to 1074 BC (see note on pg. 78 here. Roberts gives circumstantial support for these stories as history when he points out (on pg. 12 of the preface here) that Geoffrey’s book was readily accepted when it was first published (though his footnote on that page notes some disagreement) under the belief that if it was pure fiction, people familiar with oral tradition wouldn’t have so quickly adopted it. As for me, setting aside the legendary and mythological events contained in the chronicle and sifting for the names, dates, and plausible history, it’s possible, perhaps even plausible, that this chronicle is a reasonably faithful record of the history of ancient Britain. If so, it is a fascinating glimpse into often overlooked history and might provide a further evidence from secular history that modern civilization is ultimately descended from Noah and his sons. That said, if there are elements of this story that are untrue, it doesn’t undermine the early history given in Genesis 10, it only removes details of later history that tie back to those early events. For a dissenting viewpoint on Geoffrey of Monmouth, see pg. 632 of the article here that suggests Geoffrey was following a inventive legend in referring to Brutus of Troy, though that author doesn’t address the Tysilio Chronicle and is instead forcused on Nennius, another medieval manuscript author (if indeed he is the author of the document attributed to him).
  66. In the above (long) show note, I left out references to Walter of Oxford as it only muddied the water further. Walter is referenced in Cooper’s discussion at the end of chapter 2 of “After the Flood” and later in chapter 4 of “After the Flood” as well as in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s original statement in his “Historia” (quoted at the start of the article here). Walter is also referred to in the closing words of the Tysilio Chronicle as translated by both Cooper (pg. 74 here and Roberts pg. 190 here. From these references, it appears that Walter of Oxford brought an ancient British manuscript (the Tysilio Chronicle) to Geoffrey for him to translate into Welsh. Geoffrey did, then used that manuscript as a source to write his expanded “Historia” which included material from other sources besides the Tysilio Chronicle. Walter then translated that Tysilio into Latin and later back into welsh perhaps (as Roberts’ footnote suggests) because Geoffrey had the original Welsh version. The Tysilio manuscript we have must be Walter’s final welsh version, or the colophon wouldn’t exist. This is, however, only the best of my understanding from the above references, and may be incorrect. (As an added note, Cooper refers to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s “Historia Regum Britanniae” as a Latin version of the Tysilio Chronicle in his “Abbreviations” note on pg. vi of the Tysilio translation here.)
  67. For the founding of New Troy by Brutus, and the gradual change of the name to Trinovatum, then Lud then London, see pg. 10 of Cooper’s translation of the Trysilio Chronicle here and pg. 30 of Roberts’ translation here. For a discussion of sources for early British history and their reliability, see earlier show note.
  68. For the navigation records in the Tysilio Chronicle that come from a number of sources a medieval forger wouldn’t probably have access to, and that place the composition of the story in the days of the Roman empire prior to Claudis, see pgs. 8-10 here. Regarding the comparison of the Tysilio Chronicle with Caesar’s invasion that demonstrates the Tysilio presents the story from a different perspective, see starting at the bottom of pg. 3 here. Petrie concludes (pg. 10) that the Tysilio Chronicle was probably written around the first century AD, with the material in the recent past accurate with only tradition and legend prior to that point and the Brutus story the invention of someone familiar with the story of Aeneas.
  69. In Cooper’s discussion of the Tysilio Chronicle, he brings out a parallel Petrie doesn’t notice and argues that the Tysilio Chronicle records the story of the British sacking Rome, something Cooper suggests is the same as the sack of Rome known from the Roman historian Livy that occurred around 400 BC (see Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (starting on p. 47). Chapter 4. Kindle Edition). If this is true, it would push the composition date of the Tysilio Chronicle back prior to Petrie’s 1st century AD conclusion (see earlier show note) and makes me wonder if the rest of the chronicle has fairly truthful history in it, at least in outline if not in the specific more mythological details.
  70. As one of the arguments in favor of the accuracy of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s translation, pg. II of Roberts’ preface to his translation of Geoffrey (see here) notes that the book was well received upon it’s release, suggesting that the legends he recorded in written form were already known in the cultures oral tradition memories. The suggestion is that if the book was pure fiction being passed off as history, there would’ve been a greater protest. That said, in the footnote on that page, Roberts does note some initial pushback. Furthermore, Roberts goes on to point out that, if Geoffrey was publishing a forgery, and the forgery was exposed, it would tarnish his own reputation and the reputation of the nobility he dedicated it to (both disincentives to publishing a forgery). Also, likely referencing the Welsh origin and a history that denotes the English as Saxon invaders, Roberts notes that the publication was against the interests of the English government, which would be an unpopular thing to do implying that, while one might publish true history that is unpopular, they are less likely to publish fiction that is unpopular as there is no reward for doing so (unless, I suppose, it was to whip up Welsh nationalism through a forged history). Altogether, it supports the idea that Geoffrey was trying to pass on the history he was given rather than invent a fictional history, but that is just my opinion.
  71. For the argument that the story of Aeneas was latched on to by Roman writers not because it was history, but because it served national interests, see here.
  72. For a general discussion of the significance of the Illiad and the Odyssey, comments about Homer’s traditional blindness, and the debate about whether Homer wrote the poems attributed to him see articles here. Specifically, the entry on Homer from the Gale Contextual Encyclopedia of World Literature mentions that there are questions about whether Homer even existed.
  73. In contrast to the idea of descent from cavemen, Hesiod’s works and days offers much the opposite idea, showing people descending from a golden age to silver to bronze to heroes and then to the present poor iron age. See pg. 67-73 here. I also mentioned these ages of history in Episode 10.
  74. When comparing the history in Genesis to the stories remembered by other cultures, you have to make sure not to bring details from those cultures into the story as if they’re facts. As an example, in an earlier episode one of the show notes mentioned theories and speculation that Ham did more than “look” at Noah’s nakedness including castration among other possibilities (see the note on Genesis 9:22, here which also alludes to the idea that Ham must’ve “done” something (presumably not just telling other people about Noah’s nakedness) due to Noah’s words in Genesis 9:24). In that episode, I emphasized the lack of parental respect as the main factor in the story Genesis, as evidenced by Japheth and Shem’s remedy which involved the respectful covering of Noah with a garment without looking at him, something that appears literal rather than euphemistic and isn’t much of a remedy if the real crime was castration. (For more, see show notes on that episode. For more on the issue with Ham crime against Noah being parental respect, as mentioned previously, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 164). Pacific Press Publishing Association.) Even so, some scholars suggest a parallel between this story in Genesis and a legend from Greek mythology where Cronus castrates his father Uranus (again, see note on Genesis 9:22 here). Is this link reliable? There are parallels between the stories in Greek mythology and the history in Genesis (see various show notes in this episode), but how far can we extend those parallels? Let’s start with the specific family trees for this part of Genesis and this part of Greek mythology. In Genesis, Noah’s family tree can be found in Genesis 10:2-4 and it follows father-to-son as Noah - Japheth - Javan - Elishah, with Ham as Japheth’s brother. In Greek mythology, one branch of Uranus’ family tree follows father-to-son with Uranus - Iapetus - Prometheus - Deucalion - Hellen - Xuthus - Ion, with Cronus as Iapetus’ brother and Zeus as Cronus’ son (For references for this family line, see “Iapetus” entry on pg. 215 here to trace Uranus to Prometheus, see here for tracing Prometheus to Hellen, and here to go from see Hellen to Ion. For Uranus to Cronus to Zeus see here. To be clear, this is only one branch of a very complicated family tree. As an example there are references to other children of Uranus here including the Titans. A list of Titans can be found here, and this is by no means the end of complexities.).Taking those family trees, let’s start drawing links between them using the parallels in stories and names. First, assuming this castration tale is a memory of Ham’s actions toward Noah, Uranus would be Noah and Cronus would be Ham. Then there’s the suggestion that the name “Japheth” is related to the word “Iapetus,” making them the same person, and that the names “Ion” and “Javan” are also from the same original (see pgs. 2 and 7 here). In addition, in Greek legends, Deucalion the son of Prometheus, is the survivor of a flood sent by Zeus (see here potentially connecting Deucalion with Noah and Zeus with God. Furthermore, Zeus also overthrew his father, Cronus (see here), either connecting Zeus to Ham or suggesting that one of Ham’s children overthrew him, which is possible, but doesn’t show up in Genesis. Think of how these lines cross one another. Zeus is both the god who sends a flood on Deucalion (i.e. Noah) and is Uranus’ (i.e. also Noah’s) grandson. Iapetos (i.e. Japheth) is both Uranus’ (i.e. Noah’s) son and Deucalion’s (i.e. also Noah’s) grandfather. Add to that the story found on pg. 83 here and referenced earlier that says Zeus met his wife Hera in the garden of the Hesperides, seemingly connecting Zeus with Adam, and the whole genealogy gets even messier. With those links, how can you find which story is the “true” parallel between Genesis and Greek mythology? How can you tell which parts of Greek mythology correspond to the stories in Genesis and which parts don’t? It’s possible that the story of Cronus castrating Uranus might be a parallel to Ham doing something to Noah. The names certainly appear similar (with the link between names like “Iapetus” and “Japheth” being significant), but it crosses a line when you go from seeing parallels to adding details Genesis doesn’t mention. Furthermore, if we do start to add details from Greek mythology into the history in Genesis, where do you stop? Should we also accept that Ham ate his children before finally being forced by one of his later sons to vomit them up as Greek lore says of Cronus (see story here)? Is that also a real event that Genesis doesn’t mention? Instead of using mythology to fill in blanks in details Genesis leaves out, I try to look for parallels in those mythologies to the details Genesis does mention as a way of finding support for what Genesis records. This is the area where mythologies shine. They’re useful as circumstantial corroboration of the history in the Bible. There are lots of parallels between lore found around the world and the history in Genesis (see various show notes in this series of episodes), but these parallels don’t add to the story in the Bible, instead they give increased reason to have confidence and faith that Genesis is telling the truth. As for later stories like those of Brutus, much of that refers to later eras in history Genesis doesn’t record and those stories are mainly useful as a way of trying to tie together our world today with the ancient history found in Genesis.
  75. As an addendum to the above (again lengthy) show note, if you go past the Bible and just try to compare mythologies with each other, they also don’t agree. In Greek mythology they thought that Dionysus taught men how to cultivate trees and use their fruit, the Romans thought Saturn did it, and the Egyptians pointed to Osiris (see note on Genesis 9:20, here). It’s true, both Osiris and Saturn were fathers of other gods in their respective religions, but if it was a consistent parallel, the Greeks would point to Cronus, not Dionysus the god associated with wine who was Cronus’ grandson (see here. (Though note that it’s hard to tell what’s Roman mythology and what has been influenced by Greek lore as stated in earlier show note that references pg. 202 of the article here). All that said, I don’t want to dismiss mythology entirely, there are elements that seem to follow along with the history in Genesis, and parallels that offer some support, but the parallels often depart, and using details from mythology to “help” Genesis is a risky endeavor.
  76. This is my speculation, but In the discussion about the issues that come up trying to align family trees between Genesis and Greek mythology, I wonder if part of the problem is due to confused memories of a single individual being divided between different characters over time, multiple individuals merging into the same character as stories were handed down, or family relationships being forgotten and reshuffled. This would account for some of the dislocations, such as Iapetos (i.e. Japheth) being listed as the grandfather of Deucalion (i.e. Noah) rather than as his son, or Hellen (possibly linked to Elishah) being listed as the grandfather of Ion (i.e. Javan) rather than as Javan’s descendant. For links between Japheth and Iapetos and Javan and Ion and the possible connection between Hellen and Elishah, see other show notes in this episode.

Previous: Grandfathers of History, part 1

View Details

Most people left Babel and settled in other places, but they took their memories with them.

View Details

God told people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth, but most people had a different design in mind.

View Details

After the Flood, everyone planted something in the New World, but what would they end up harvesting?

View Details

There’s only one storm that wrapped around the entire planet. This is the story of the sailors who lived through it.

View Details

This is the story of a storm, and the people who saw it.

View Details

With chemistry, logistics, and one last chance for the world’s original Millennials, this is the story of building history’s most famous boat.

View Details

We usually start the story of Noah when he was already middle aged, but what did it take to get there? When the world left God behind, what made Noah different?

View Details

This is the second part of the story of two civilizations. It’s about family, technology, crime, and the betrayal that was the beginning of the end.

View Details

After Cain murdered Abel and left God behind, Genesis tells the story of two families. It’s a story of faith, civilization, technology, and men who lived to be nearly a thousand years old. This is the story of the Millennials.

View Details

One of the world’s oldest debates began outside the Garden’s gates. This is the story of two men and one God.

View Details

From ancient temples to African legends to fishermen in Nicaragua, stories all over the globe seem to be connected with one another. This episode is about those stories, how they got confused, and the message Adam might’ve wanted everyone to remember.

View Details

If the first two parts of the series were the setting and the crime, this part is the trial. It’s the story of the last evening in Eden, but it’s a tragedy with a twist.

View Details

Part 2 brings heaven’s civil war to the Earth. So far, Lucifer’s rebellion hadn’t gone how he had hoped. Now it was time for a back-up plan.

View Details

With ancient geography, forgotten biology, and an uninvited guest with a past, this episode is the story of Eden.

View Details

There are a lot of versions of history. How do you know yours is the right one?

View Details

There are a lot of versions of history. How do you know yours is the right one?

View Details

For a long time, the Bible was the most important book in the western world, …then something changed.

This first episode of WiderBible is the prologue. It looks at the history of the Bible, where it came from, and why so many people disagree about whether its stories are fact or fiction.

Christianity makes more sense with a little background.