For the story of Semyon Deshnev who went through the strait later named after Vitus Bering in 1648, see pgs. 50-52 here which notes that Deshnev’s own account was not found until 1736 in archives in Yakutsk which puts it 8 years after Bering’s expedition. For 1728 as Vitus’ Bering’s first expedition to the strait now named for him, see here. For the details on the Kolyma river, see here.

For the travel between Asia and the Americas at various points across the Pacific, I measured the distances on the map here. For the 4000 mile trip across the open ocean, I assumed no island stops. Clearly the trip could be shorter if island hopping. For more on the people who lived on islands in the Pacific, see Episode 22. For the distance from Japan to the end of the Aleutian islands, I used the northern island of Japan and the island of Attu. The distance across the Bering strait is given as about 53 miles here.

Despite the Americas being so close to the easternmost point of Asia, the official discovery of land on the other side of the Bering strait didn’t come until 1732 when a Russian expedition led by Mikhail Gvozdev crossed the strait based on rumors of land on the other side heard from local peoples in the area according to pg. 50 here.

I mentioned land bridges in the last episode, but as I was only talking about southeast Asia, Australia, and the islands in the Pacific, I didn’t discuss the sea floor under the Bering strait that, with perhaps a higher sea floor and lower sea levels, could have linked Asia and Alaska together. Much of the creationist perspective on this land bridge is offered by Michael J. Oard in a few different articles. The article here notes that this land bridge across the Bering Strait has gained support from non-religious sources and suggests animals used the land bridge to migrate to the Americas. That author also theorizes here that the sea floor was higher in the past so that land was exposed early in the Ice Age and not only when sea level was at its lowest, an idea he also notes here including the suggestion that people might’ve also used boats along the coast. He doesn’t give a mechanism for why the sea floor would be higher. I wonder if it might just be an effect of the tectonic plates still settling into their new positions after the Flood. In addition, the sea floor is still changing. According to the article here in the 60 years between 1950 and 2010, the floor of the ocean got about 3 feet deeper in the Bering Strait probably due to water flowing through it. Given our limited data, we don’t know how long that erosion has been going on, or at what rate, though whether the strait was shallower in the past simply due to erosion is just my speculation. A map of the sea floor showing what the land bridge might’ve looked like is also available here which shows a low area of water between Asia and the Americas. I wonder if that low area is simply due to the effects of the erosion mentioned above, but again, that is my speculation. The idea that there was a land link between Asia and the Americas isn’t something new. As far back as the 1600s, Matthew Poole, in a note on Genesis 8:17 in his commentary (see here) mentions that people in his day thought that the Americas were connected or nearly connected to the European continent (presumably through Asia), though it is unclear what maps that idea was based on as the Bering Strait itself wasn’t officially explored until the 1700s according to the article here. For a further discussion of migration to the Americas from where the Ark landed after the Flood by a different creation promoting author, see here. See also here for a brief discussion of how the red fox might’ve migrated across the Bering land bridge. For a secular source that also promotes the idea of the land bridge at what is today the Bering Strait, see here.

For the location of the la Brea tar pits relative to the Pacific Ocean and Los Angeles, I measured the distance using Google maps. For a description of how oil wells up to the surface and evaporates, leaving tar behind, see pg. 9 here with pg. 10 adding that oil still comes up there in the modern day. That source also notes, on pg. 2, the Native American use of the tar for waterproofing purposes and pgs. 12-13 describe how the bones came to be preserved in the tar. The name “La Brea Tar Pits,” if all in English, would simply be “The Tar Tar pits” as “la brea” is means “tar” according to “brea, f.” Langenscheidt Pocket Spanish Dictionary, Langenscheidt, 1985, p. 60.

For an understanding of the La Brea Tar Pits as a post-Flood formation see here. This conclusion supports the idea that the animals found in the tar are a window into animals that lived after the Flood, not before it.

For details on the size and appearance of woolly mammoths, see here. As far as what a Woolly Mammoth is, genetic studies outlined here suggest that what was thought to be multiple species of mammoth is just one species, something that fits well, in my opinion, with a group of individuals crossing the Bering land bridge and then growing and adapting to different environments in North America. For mammoth fossils found at La Brea, see here.

For a description of giant ground sloths, see here, here, and here which note that the larger sloths were over 2000 lbs. For a comparison to the size of a bison, see here which gives the upper limit as 2,000 pounds and notes that they are the largest mammal in North America. For ground sloth fossils found at La Brea, see here.

For details about short-faced bears, see here that notes they are found in the La Brea Tar Pits, and here that gives their estimated height at shoulder and when standing on hind legs. That source also notes that the name “short-faced bear” isn’t a good description as its face wasn’t unusual for such a large bear. The list of mammals found a La Brea (see here) also includes black bears and grizzly bears.

For details about saber-toothed cats, see here that notes they are found in the La Brea Tar Pits. The source here notes that the canine teeth were “about 7 inches” while the reference here gives “nearly 18cm (7 inches).” The site here mentions evidence of over 2,000 different saber-toothed cats have been found at La Brea.

For a description of dire wolves compared to modern wolves, including how many had been found at La Brea at the time of its writing, see pg. 55 here which notes that they had the strongest teeth of any canis. That source claims they had “sturdier” legs though here it says their legs were “relatively light.” As for bite force, the paper here analyzed a number of living an extinct skulls and estimated the dire wolf bite force at 163 compared to a living wolf’s 136 as outlined on pg. 621 in that article. For the number of different individual dire wolves found at the La Brea Tar Pits as well as the fact that they are the most common fossil, see here.

For a description of giant beavers, see here.

If you’re concerned that, in just the thousands of years since the Flood, the animal population couldn’t have grown to the numbers we find on Earth today, see population modeling article here with some useful analysis.

We’re not sure why the large animals that once lived in the Americas died out. There are a couple of theories mentioned here including that the animals were unable to adapt to the changing climate at the end of the Ice Age or that humans hunted them to extinction.

For the definition and location of the Arctic circle at over 66 degrees north latitude, see here. Wales, Alaska (see map here) is only at 65 degrees north latitude, making it just south of the Arctic circle. For the date of the summer solstice, I used this page which gives June 20 as the date and this source which gives the sunrise and sunset times in Nome, Alaska. That city is south of Wales but if anything it underestimates how long a day might be in the middle of summer for people crossing the Bering land bridge. For all these calculations, I assume the Earth was at its current angle to the sun in space and not wobbling as it settled after the Flood.

As for the people who settled in the Americas, that’s an open question, though to extend what I’ve said in the last couple of episodes, I’d guess that they were more descendants of Japheth for a few reasons. First, as mentioned in Episode 21, Noah blessed Japheth and said his family would be “enlarged” which could refer to the territory his family would settle. Second, Japheth’s kids are known to have gone to India and probably Iran (see Episode 20) and I’ve previously guessed that they went to China and the islands of the Pacific (see Episode 21 and Episode 22). This suggested connection between the Americas and Japheth is not new. In a commentary written in the 1800s (see note on Albert Barnes on pg. 412 here it is mentioned in the note on Genesis 9:26 here, and the connection between Noah’s blessing and Japheth’s expanded family comes up in the notes on Genesis 10:1-2, 4 here with verse 20 in that chapter mentioning the Americas (“New World”) again. Again, whether the first people in the Americas after Babel were descendants of Japheth or not is an open question as is the question of what other people arrived when to add to that population. See discussion later in this episode about possible contact between Asia and the Americas before Columbus’ voyages. Also note that the DNA tracing theory discussed later takes a different viewpoint, though one that I have my doubts about.

We don’t know if the first people came to the Americas on foot or by boat, but either way, at some point they had to explore the land either along the route of their migration or after disembarking from their boats. For parallel theories of settlers arriving in the Americas either by land bridge or boat, see the article here.

We don’t know how long it took for people to reach the Americas after the Flood but it’s not too hard to make a rough estimate. Measuring a dot-to-dot distance from Babel (I’ll use the site of Babylon in modern Iraq, see Episode 16) to near the southern tip of South America gives about 17,000 miles (see here). That’s perhaps close to a minimum value. Assume the trip was less focused and only trended in that direction with other wanderings, I’ll assume people really traveled about 30,000 miles. If that’s the case, and a nomadic family moved about 1 mile every day during the summer months and camped for the winter giving a total migration of about 180 miles a year, they would still be able to travel 30,000 miles in less than 170 years. This is a very rough estimate. People could have stayed in place for decades at a time and reached South America much more slowly, or they might have purposely set out to explore new regions and cut some of the distance and effort by taking boats and gotten to South America faster. For other discussions of the time it took people to travel to the Americas from the region where Noah’s ark landed, see the articles here which estimates 100-400 years and here which offers a minimum of 60 years.

While the dates suggested in the articles here, here, and here don’t fit with the time line of history found in Genesis, they do suggest humans were present in America during what they call the “Last Glacial Maximum” (what I would call the Ice Age after the Flood). This fits well with the model I’ve referred to in earlier episodes that suggests people were able to migrate around or past the ice sheets due to the warm oceans keeping shorelines and ocean surfaces open for navigation rather than having to wait until after the ice melted, but research does little to tell us when exactly that migration took place as the estimates for dates of the artifacts they have found are much older than what fits with the history in the Bible.

In researching the history of the world, sometimes the question of petroglyphs and other man-made artifacts comes up, such as the carvings found in Nevada or the arranged stones in Wyoming that are claimed to be older than the time since the creation of the world, let alone the time since the Flood or when people left Babel. Making sense of that comes down to any of a number of assumptions. Properly understood, I think these artifacts, and others like them, were made, probably at the oldest, by people who spread out after Babel, but depending assumptions, it might have been much more recently.

I’ve said it in earlier episodes, but just to reiterate, I’m cherry picking the legends I talk about. People in the past could make things up just as people can today so there are many stories that don’t sound like the history in Genesis. I’m not going over all of legends I find, but only the ones that sound oddly like the history found in Genesis and doing what I can to filter out those legends that appear to be influenced by someone with a Christian background in an attempt to figure out what the people in the Americas believed before those beliefs were affected by the arrival of Europeans. This, of course, is a subjective process, and nothing guarantees that local stories hadn’t been influenced by outsiders prior to the arrival of European explorers and settlers as mentioned later in this episode.

I use a variety of sources for the stories in this episode, but among them, as in previous episodes, I’ve used many legends collected by James George Frazer from the early 1900s. Frazer was not a proponent of the reliability of the Bible, but he did helpfully collect many legends that can be reviewed to see where people around the world might have stories that sound like memories of the history in Genesis. For examples of Frazer disbelieving the accuracy of the Bible, see show note on Episode 22. As in previous episodes, I’ve also used material from the “Mythology of all Races” series, specifically volume 10 on North America also published toward the beginning of the 1900s.

For the story of people living in Norton Sound in Alaska, see pg. 327 here which tells of the water covering all but one mountain where the animals survived while some people survived in a boat.

In Episode 22, I noted that some people think stories of a flood are just memories of a tsunami. That could be the case in some instances, especially examples such as the story from Alaska found on pgs. 326-327 here where a sudden flood from the sea comes after an earthquake. On the other hand, in my opinion, stories near the coast that don’t mention an earthquake or other features that sound like a tsunami, or stories that come from people who don’t live near the coast, don’t line up with what one would expect of a memory of a tsunami.

For the story from northwest Canada of a wise man who built a raft to survive a flood that covered the world, see pgs. 310-312 here. The story continues from where I left off with other details that don’t parallel the history in Genesis. For the location of the Hare people of Canada (called the “Hareskin Indians” by the source of the story) see entry here.

The Kaska people of North America say that people all once lived together and had one language, then they were separated in different boats by a flood and settled in different places around the world and now have different languages according to pgs. 442-443 here. For the location of the Kaska, see pg. 427 in that source.

This story also found on pg. 119 here in Gaster, Theodor H. Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament, Harper & Row, New York, 1969.

For the story from the Squamish tribe of British Columbia, see pgs. 42-43 here.

For the story from the Bella Coola tribe of British Columbia, see pg. 320 here.

For the story of the Twanas tribe of Washington state, see pgs. 323-324 here. It is interesting to me that the name of the mountain means “fastener” in their language, and might lend support to the theory that the Twanas flood story is older than European influence if the name of that particular peak predates European arrival, unless a different explanation can be derived for why they refer to the peak as “fastener,” but that is just my speculation. See later discussion in this episode about possible alternative outside influences that predated European arrival making it even harder to tell what the original local legends were.

For the flood legend around Mt. Ranier, see pgs. 31-32 here. To me, while the details are different, the story combines elements of both a flood and a tower to heaven which could be memories of the history in Genesis, though that is just my speculation.

For the Pullayop story see pg. 324 here.

For the Yakima story of the flood, see pg. 45 here. In that story, it also notes that before the flood the good people “remembered what they had been told by the old people who were gone” which sounds to me like a memory of Adam, Enoch, and perhaps others who had lived and died before the the flood came, though that is just my speculation.

According to pg. 221 here, creation stories from the west coast of North America sound more like Earth being restored or made again after some catastrophe rather than tales of how it was created in the first place. In the same book pg. 234 also notes that while the stories in North America often describe death coming to the world as a result of chance, on the west coast there are examples where death comes as a result of morals and reason.

For the story of the Yurok people, see pg. 68 in Bell, Rosemary. Yurok Tales. Bell Books, 1992 which also notes that they take logs and sea shells on the mountains as proof of the flood.

Besides the Yurok people mentioned above, there are other places in the world where stories point to the existence of sea shells or whale bones up on mountains as evidence that water used to cover that land (see, for instance, stories from the far north on pgs. 327-328 here). A response for this among people today is that the land used to be part of the sea floor that has now been pushed up out of the water (see here). For a creationist perspective on the question, see here.

For the Maidu flood story, see on pgs. 290-291 here. This story has parallels to the history of the Flood from Genesis, though not perfect ones, because while it is described as a flood that only covers the central valley of California, the two survivors repopulate the world (assuming that isn’t just a generic term for the central valley).

For mention of deserts in the western part of North America in the past see here. That source gives a timeline much longer than the history in the Bible, but assuming the facts are correct and the dating is simply too long, it gives an idea of how the climate used to be different. For a creationist perspective on the subject, see here.

For the theory that the central valley of California was once filled with a lake called alternatively “Lake Clyde” or “Lake Corcoran” see pg. 43 here as well as the abstract for the book chapter here both of which give dates of over 600,000 years ago for the draining of the lake into the ocean. In another source, it notes that the water eroded parts of the Diablo and Mayacamas ranges to form the Carquinez strait and notes that the lake was drained by 500,000 years ago on pg. 25 here which also gives a map showing the estimated size and location of the lake which took up a considerable portion of the middle of California. As for the claim that the lake drained around 600,000 years ago, I assume that date suffers from the same methods used elsewhere in geology to estimate the ages of sediments as outlined here, here, and here. You can perhaps see some assumptions on pg. 8 here where the suggestion that the lake was close to sea level is based on the fact that it supposedly lasted a long time and would’ve eroded its way to the sea if it was much above sea level meaning the assumption of a long existence (presumably based on sediments or other reasoning) dictates other conclusions. Instead, if properly understood, I would expect the true date of the draining of the lake to be sometime during the first few hundred years after the Flood.

For the story of the confusion of languages among the Maidu people of California, see pg. 386-387 here. The author speculates in footnote 2 on pgs. 386-387 that the “burning” mentioned in the story was a religious event put on by shamans.

For the story of the Kato people from southern California, see pgs. 79-82 here. After the flood and the forming of land again, people just “appeared” before turning into animals when the Native Americans showed up without explanation as to where the people-animals came from or where the Native Americans came from (either migration or re-creation).

For a creationist perspective on the formation of the Rocky Mountains, see here.

For the Pawnee story see pgs. 354-356 here. For the Pawnee living in what is now Nebraska, see here. As an added detail, the story says the Pawnee point to the bones found in the ground (presumably things like dinosaur and mammoth bones) as evidence that these giants once lived and sank into the mud in the flood of their legend.

There is a Cheyenne legend that sounds like the history in Genesis. Most of the parallels in the Cheyenne story happen toward the beginning where they recall that the world and skies and a beautiful land were once created by a being called the “Great Medicine.” In the beautiful land, there was lots of food, no winter, and people went around without clothes and were friends with the animals as described on pgs. 124-127 here. The story talks of three groups of people — the Cheyenne (or possibly Native Americans in general), white people, and hairy people — and focuses on their travel away from that once perfect land. It doesn’t say why they left the land, but there is reference to the “Great Medicine” blessing them and giving them intelligence which they hadn’t had before and teaching them to wear clothes and to make tools and weapons. It isn’t hard to see the gift of knowledge as some recollection of the first sin (eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) and God giving them clothes and sending them out of the Garden of Eden, but that is just my speculation. From there the Cheyenne tell of traveling south, then leaving after being warned of a flood and going back north, where they could no longer speak to the animals. They went south again after the flood, then another flood came and dispersed them and they went north. Then there was an earthquake, fire and smoke from hills, and winter and more floods, elements that could, again, be foggy memories of the history in Genesis or perhaps various travels after leaving Babel, but again, that is only my speculation. In that section the author goes on to tell of another Cheyenne story that includes their escape from slavery and crossing a divided body of water on dry land and suggests, quite plausibly, the legend is just a Cheyenne adaptation of the story of the Exodus from the Bible, though noting that after entering the new land on the far side of the water, the legend appears to turn back into an actual Cheyenne story and includes stories of large animals which the author speculatively connects to possible recollections of mammoths. Altogether, it is hard to know how original the Cheyenne story is and which elements are from outside influence. To me, the parts that sound like the Exodus history from the Bible, which happened after people left Babel are probably from outside sources that got mixed into Cheyenne legends. Earlier elements of a paradise in the north and the later stories of large animals might be genuine legends, though that’s only a guess.

For the legend from the Huron tribe, see pg. 36 here where it is claimed that the Huron think that all maladies come from snakes. This is interesting to me in that Huron lands were in the north around the Great Lakes (see map here) where you wouldn’t expect lots of fear of snakes to exist compared to places further south that have more venomous snakes and a more justifiable fear of snakes.

I spoke about the “horned serpent” and “tie snake” previously in Episode 5 and Episode 7. Reiterating some of what was said in show notes there, Joel Martin (see biography here) describes the tie snake and calls it “beautiful” on pgs. 25-26 in Martin, Joel W., Sacred Revolt: The Muskogees’ Struggle for a New World. Beacon Press, 1991. It is noted on pgs. 24-26 here that Martin treats the “tie snake” and the “horned serpent” as the same thing, but his description might fit the horned serpent better. The same page in that source also describes the origin of the horned serpent noting that there are different versions of the story but it involved a man or woman eating forbidden food before turning into the snake, with the story sometimes including a tree. While that isn’t the history found in Genesis, the elements of a tree, two people, forbidden food, and a serpent are all present in the story. The above sources refer to “Muskogee” and “Creek” in places though “Creek” appears to be an English name rather than a native name. For the historic homes of the Muskogee people and the reason for using that name instead of “Creek” see description and maps on pgs. 6-11 in Martin, Joel W., Sacred Revolt: The Muskogees’ Struggle for a New World. Beacon Press, 1991.

In Episode 5, describing legends people around the world have about fantastic snakes that might be memories of the serpent in the Garden of Eden, I mentioned the Cherokee story of the “Uktena” and gave a quote describing it. While it is a fantastical snake, and aligns well with the “tie snake” and “horned serpent” idea from the Muskogee, the rest of the legend of the Uktena doesn’t show similarities with the history in Genesis. In general, according to pgs. 252-253 here the Uktena was one of four snakes (the others being a type of adder, the copperhead, and the rattlesnake) who were originally men but were changed into snakes by the “little men” (see their origin story on pgs. 242-248 in the above source) to attack the sun which was killing people with its heat. Ultimately the Uktena did nothing but was jealous of the rattlesnake that succeeded and went to heaven, leaving smaller versions of itself behind as noted on pg. 297 in that source. It is there that a description of the Uktena is given. Whether this is simply a fantastic description of a made-up serpent or some recollection of the serpent from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is open for speculation. To me, it is interesting that the other three snakes are all known species except for the Uktena which is described in a much more mythological way. The rest of the story of the Uktena doesn’t parallel the history in Genesis, though the Muskogee legend (mentioned above) links a similar fantastic snake to eating forbidden food, which does sound to me more like it might be a recollection of the history in Genesis. For the background of James Mooney, who wrote the story of the Uktena, see here).

For the Cherokee flood story, see pgs. 294-295 here. For their location, see here.

For the Chitimacha story, see pg. 19 here. For the Chitimacha hailing from Louisiana, see here.

For the Natchez story of the flood, see pg. 291-292 here which references in its footnote a source dating to 1758. That story is ambiguous about where the Natchez were from noting a historian of Louisiana and a reference to the southern part of the Mississippi river, but for reference to the Natchez being from Mississippi see here.

For the story from the Zuni from New Mexico pgs. 287-288 here.

For a creationist perspective on the formation of the Grand Canyon during the Flood, see here.

For the Havasupai story, see pg. 180 here which mentions a feud between brothers leading to a flood. For the Havasupai living around the Grand Canyon, see here.

The stories I mention from people in North America are only a selection of legends found there. There are stories from the Montagnais on pgs. 295-297 here and pgs. 42-43 here. Various stories of the Ojibwe or Chippewa can be found on pgs. 297-308 here. There’s a story from Alberta, Canada found on pgs. 314-315 here that tells of a man and woman who collected animals on a raft and survived a flood. In the Great Plains the Arikara have a story on pgs. 107-108 here of “Mother Corn." Later, pgs. 204-205 in the same source have stories from the Hopi. Finally, you can find stories from the Pima people on pgs. 177-179 here and 286-287 here. As with any story from North America, these are open to the accusation of outside influence which may or may not be true.

For the Plymouth colonists arrival in 1620, see here. For other explorers visiting North America prior to the Plymouth colonists, see World Encyclopedia reference to Jacques Cartier here who explored in the 1500s.

For mention of Bjarni’s initial voyage where he sighted land on his way to Greenland, see here and pgs. 12-15 in Johnston, George. The Greenlanders Saga. Oberon Press, 1976 that mentions him later telling the story. On pgs. 5-9 of that source, it gives a very helpful summary including the suggestion that the lands the Vikings found were places that are today part of Canada. It also notes discrepancies between versions of the saga and mentions the belief that they were written around the early 1200s. The lengths of the last two voyages are detailed on pgs. 28-38 in that source. For other comments, see pg. 47 here which suggests they were written down in the second half of the 1100s AD and mentions that the word “saga” refers to what was originally oral versions of history. That source also notes that the sagas come from a time when Norse religion and Christianity were functioning side-by-side. For general reference to the Scandinavian adventures along the eastern shores of North America and the suggestion they occurred around 1000 AD, see comment here and pg. 1 here which also notes that a German mapmaker linked the Scandinavian coastline discovery with the a continent named “America” as early as 1507.

For the site of a Viking settlement on Newfoundland, see here, though I don’t know that they can prove whether it is the same site as the one told about in the sagas or some other settlement that didn’t make it into the history books.

For the Vikings only becoming Christian around the same time as the expeditions to what’s called “Vinland,” see a list of dates on pg. 47 here which place the conversions of the Danes, Norwegians, and Icelanders in the 900s-1000 AD, though there would have been Christian influence on those people prior to formal conversion. As for the date of Leif’s commission to preach Christianity in Greenland, see pg. 14 here which footnote 1 gives as occurring in the year AD 1000.

For the theory that uses DNA samples to construct a family tree and suggest that the Native Americans present when Europeans arrived in the Americas migrated from Asia around the 300-600s or 1000s AD and replaced whoever was already living in the Americas, see here. That theory, detailed in Jeanson, N. T. (2022). Traced: Human DNA’s big surprise. Master Books. uses a y-chromosome family tree which claims to extend back to Noah, with the top three main branches of the tree suggested to be Shem, Ham, and Japheth (see pg. 174 in Traced). I am not a biologist, have no expertise in genetics, and I hesitate to disagree with people far more educated and studied on this topic than I. That said, while at least some parts of the idea appear plausible, the theory also makes assumptions of uncertain support and draws conclusions that don’t appear to be likely. All that said, it is an interesting idea and the theory appears to be in active development, so perhaps as more research comes in and conclusions are refined it will become more convincing.

For an example of Christianity’s presence in Asia by the 600s AD, see pgs. 8-10 here for a discussion of the Nestorian Monument found in China and pg. 184 here for another reference to the year 635 AD.

The argument that the stories found among Native Americans in the Americas that sound like the history in Genesis are only due to outside influence from Christian sources doesn’t explain why these stories don’t tell of events that happened later in the Bible. I think a Christian missionary or castaway who tells people about creation, the fall, the Flood, and the Tower if Babel such that those legends become part of Native American lore would also talk about Jesus and the hope of His return. If these stories are missing, it means either the Native Americans didn’t preserve that story, the hypothetical outside source didn’t share it with them, or there was no outside source, and the stories are missing because the people today split off from other people at the Tower of Babel and didn’t know about later events. Of these, the third option explains why the legends parallel Genesis only through the Tower of Babel with no reference to Jesus. As I mentioned in the audio, I’ve talked about this idea before in Episode 17 and in Episode 22. See there for show notes and reference to Bill Cooper who initially made the suggestion in one of his books. The Cheyenne story I mentioned in an earlier show note does have a portion that sounds like the story of the Exodus (though nothing I found referring to Jesus), and therefore may be evidence of outside influence on that tribe’s legends. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that there are legends I didn’t come across from other tribes that do reference later events in the Bible, such as stories of Jesus, in which case I would agree that such legends make a strong case for Christian influence from outsiders on that tribe’s legends. Even if one tribe was influenced by Christianity at some point, it doesn’t mean all the stories from all other tribes were as well, though it does increase the possibility depending on how long ago stories were recorded by Europeans with those that were copied down earlier less likely to show the effect of outside influence on native legends that would’ve occurred over time as more and more settlers had contact with native people.

Besides the example of Poverty Point, Louisiana, there are other places in North America where it appears humans lived long ago. Among them are locations with artifacts scientists believe date back thousands of years, which would make them even older than the dates given for Flood and Creation according to the timeline from the Bible such as the Meadowcroft Rockshelter (see also petroglyphs discussed in earlier part of this episode). There are also examples such as the Hopewell culture (https://web.archive.org/web/20250315230645/https://www.nps.gov/hocu/index.htm) with its mounds that are suggested to be around 2000 years old. Accepting that the dates given aren’t certain and all of them, properly understood, come from after the Flood about 4000 years ago (see earlier show note on petroglyphs for explanation), it at least suggests that humans were present in North America long before the 600 AD or 900 AD dates suggested by the recent DNA tracing theory described earlier. As such, it appears to me that those later arrivals may have become the ancestors of the Native Americans present when European explorers and settlers arrived, but they were not the “first” people to explore and live in the Americas after the Flood.

For the location of Poverty Point in Louisiana near the Mississippi river, see the map here. For details on its background, see the description given here that mentions both the believed age, that the largest ring is 1.14km in diameter (around 0.7 miles), when it became a world heritage site, and some other details and includes some pictures of the area that shows both grass and trees growing out of some mounds.

For the cover art for this episode, the text on the map of a portion of North America with is text quoted from pg. 290 here that was referenced on pgs. 290-291 here.

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.

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.

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.

For people already being present in New Zealand when Abel Tasman arrived in 1642 as the first European explorer, see here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For a discussion of volcanoes and earthquakes that might’ve taken place during the Flood, see Episode 13.

For iguanas colonizing a new island in the Caribbean after floating there on a mat of plants after hurricanes, see here

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For Borneo as the third largest island in the world, see here.

For the story from Borneo of a great snake swimming in a worldwide ocean at the start of creation, see pg. 159 here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For the reference to the son of the sky-god coming from heaven on a rainbow, see pg. 156 here.

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.

For the story from Sulawesi of a woman and mouse surviving a flood, see pg. 102 here.

For a map of Indonesia, see here.

For the origin of the name and the Spanish history of the Philippines, see here.

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.

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.

For the story from the Philippines of everyone drowning in a Flood except for a pregnant woman, see pg 225 here.

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.

For New Guinea being the second largest island in the world, see here.

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.

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.

For the story from New Guinea of the king of the snakes stopping a great Flood, see pgs. 119-120 here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For the sun offering immortality, and snakes and stones living forever but people not listening so they die instead, see pg. 119 here.

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.

For the river system that used to flow through what is today the Simpson desert in Australia, see here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For the belief in part of Australia that an evil spirit in the shape of a snake caused death, see pgs. 24-25 here.

For the number of snake species and number of venomous snake species in Australia, see here as referenced in an earlier episode.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The distances between small islands dotting the Pacific can be measured here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For the story from Palau (called Pelew islands, see above show note) of a flood, see pgs. 253-254 here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For the story from Fiji where only eight people survive a flood on boats, see pgs. 239-240 here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For one version of creation from the Marquesas, see pg. 11 here that references pg. 63 here

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For the distance from Hawaii to California, see map here.

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, T. (2020). Polo, Marco. In The world book encyclopedia. (Vol. 15, pg. 648). Chicago, IL: World Book. (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.

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.

For a discussion of the Ice Age from a Biblical perspective, see show notes for Episode 19.

For Asia having grasslands and bushes, as well as selling of ivory to Europe and China, see article on mammoths here.

For information on woolly rhinos, see here.

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.

For the existence of cave lions in Asia during the Ice Age and their size relative to modern lions, see here.

For the discovery of one “steppe wolf” in Siberian permafrost, see article here.

For cave bears in Asia and their size relative to modern Polar bears and Kodiak bears, see here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For evidence that Neanderthals made things for other than practical purposes (i.e. decorations) see article here.

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.

For Neanderthal Birch glue being made using a complex process, see articles here and here.

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.

Supporting the argument that Neanderthals and other cavemen were simply “men,” see articles here and here.

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.

For the Scythians also being connected to Europe and Asia, and not Scotland only, see here.

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).

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.

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.

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.

For the Mongol tradition of the flood, see pg 217 here.

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).

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.

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 in Morris, Henry, M., The Genesis Record. Baker Book House, 1976). 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 than 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 15 in Christie, Anthony. Chinese Mythology. Peter Bedrick Books, 1987 which also states that (as of presumably initial 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.

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, G. (2020) Zhou dynasty. In The world book encyclopedia. (Vol. 21, pg. 590). Chicago, IL: World Book. 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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 in Birrell, Anne. The Classic of Mountains and Seas. Penguin Books, 1999 with pgs. xxxviii - xl discussing the age of the original text and generally settling on the same range as given above, though going into the 100s AD at the latest. Later in that source, pgs. xlix - l 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. The source also notes, on pg. xliii - xlv, 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.

For an overview of the legend of Khun-lun (also spelled “Kunlun”), the mountain to the far west in Chinese lore, see pgs. 76-80 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 in the text of the Classic of Mountains and Seas found in Birrell, Anne. The Classic of Mountains and Seas. Penguin Books, 1999 (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 source uses the name “Waste of Offspringline” which pgs. 244-245 show to have “k’un-lun” in their non-translated names with entries in that glossary mentioning the Waste of Offspringline as part of the “Mount of Offspringline” (which it defines as more than one mountain) and related to the “Mound of Offspringline”. 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 pgs. 244-245 in Birrell, Anne. The Classic of Mountains and Seas. Penguin Books, 1999 (see earlier show note for description of that record). For the Yellow river as a major waterway in China, see article here.

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).

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 glossary to the Classic of Mountains and Seas on pg. 249 in Birrell, Anne. The Classic of Mountains and Seas. Penguin Books, 1999 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.

For the mention of every kind of animal living on Khun-lun, see pg. 176 in Birrell, Anne. The Classic of Mountains and Seas. Penguin Books, 1999 in the Classic of Mountains and Seas (see earlier shownote for details on that source).

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

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

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.

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 Legge, James., Chai, Ch’u., Chai, Winberg., Li Chi Book of Rites. University Books, 1967 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.

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).

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 in Birrell, Anne. The Classic of Mountains and Seas. Penguin Books, 1999 who is responsible for guarding a specific jewel tree, and goes on (on pg. 246) to describe the animal as “marking” east. Going to the translation, pgs. 140-141 in the same Birrell, Anne. The Classic of Mountains and Seas. Penguin Books, 1999, to find 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 in the first source above is related to the “Openbright” name used in the translation found in the second source above, but that is only my best guess. As for the number of guardian animals, there is mention of lots of gates each with its own animal on pg. 140 in the above reference, 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 that is defined as standing on the peak of the mountain, 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

The note on Genesis 9:13, here suggests that rainbows were considered bad omens by the Chinese.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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 in Gray, Louis Herbert, The Mythology of All Races. Vol. XII. Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1964 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.

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.

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.

For the distance from the place where the Tigris and Euphrates merge to the Persian Gulf, see article here.

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.

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.

For the settlers of Greece, Italy, Spain, and Britain, see Episode 18.

For people who settled Europe and Scandinavia, see Episode 19.

For the Karun river going on a northeast-southwest angle into mountainous country, see the articles here and here.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

For the connection between Babel and Babylon, see Episode 16 and associated show notes.

For the Medes and Persians both being involved in the invasion of Babylon, see comment in Daniel 5:28.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For a description of the dualism in Zoroastrianism and an overview of the good and evil forces, see pgs. 260-261 here.

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.

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.

I don’t guarantee that I pronounced the names correctly in any of these stories.

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.

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.

For the story of Masha and Mashyoi, one version of the first human couple in Iranian lore, see pgs. 296-297 here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 in Gray, Louis Herbert, The Mythology of All Races. Vol. XII. Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1964, the result of a backlash against the pride of Hindu priests. Jainism supposedly started around 700 BC, but according to pg. 220 here and the writings of Jainism were still being modified until the 400s AD.

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.

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.

For what the world would’ve been like after the Flood, see theorized description of the Ice age in Episode 19.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 in Gray, Louis Herbert, The Mythology of All Races. Vol. XII. Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1964. 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.

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.

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.

For snakes in India, see introduction to book here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

For details on Bangladesh’s climate, see Chapman, G.P. (2020). Bangladesh. In The world book encyclopedia (Vol. 2, pgs. 83-84). Chicago, IL: World Book.

For Bangladesh as a tornado hotspot, and the reasons for it, see here.

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.

The story from Bangladesh that describes the creation of the world, the first people, the making of alcohol after listening to the chief spirit, the destruction of the world with fire-rain, repopulating the world afterward, living on a plain, and being divided into different groups comes from pgs. VII-19 in Bodding, P. O., Traditions and Institutions of the Santals. Gyan Publishing House, 2001. The material comes from L. O. Skrefsrud (see pg. Vii in the above source) who is given as a Norwegian missionary in the article on pg. 187 here. Skrefsrud got the information from an “old guru” in 1871 according to pg. 1 the above Bodding source. Referring to the Bodding source, the creator of the Santals is called Thakur Jiu (the supreme god according to pg. VII and referenced as the creator on pg. 3). The being that convinces the couple to make alcohol is called “Lita” (pg. 6) with the footnote on that page noting that “Lita” Is the chief “bonga” and is always called “Maran buru.” The “bongas” are “spirits” according to the article here. There is some combining of the roles of creator and tempter in the Santal story, though. First, while in Genesis God is the creator and the serpent tempts Eve and Adam and Eve then hide from God and confess to Him (see Genesis 1-3 and specifically Genesis 3:8-10 for hiding from God), in the Santal story of temptation and sin, “Lita,” encouraged the people to brew beer but then they hid from and confess to “Lita,” the tempter, rather than to God. In addition, in the Santal legend, the people are tempted and make alcohol, but the emphasis of their crime appears to be intercourse given references that the couple “commenced to toy amorously; continuing this they both drank all and also became very drunk. It became night, they lay down together.” This is followed by the confession that, “last night when we had become drunk from beer, we have done something bad” which puts the emphasis on “something” rather than the drinking itself (quotes from pg. 6 in Bodding source). This Santal legend stands in contrast to the instructions in Genesis where God commands people to “be fruitful and multiply” (see Genesis 1:28 before sin, with the sin only coming later and clearly given as disobedience in eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (see Genesis 3:11 not some other unknown crime. Finally, the reaction of “Lita” of smiling and dismissing the crime (again from pg. 6 in Bodding source) further makes it clear that Lita parallels the serpent (Satan) in the Genesis story, not the Creator (that said, pgs. 14-19 in the Bodding reference have another version of the legend in which Maran buru seems to be more of a messenger of the creator, as best I can tell, with a comment on pg. 19 noting that this is a different role for Maran buru than is usually given). 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 in Bodding source) and since Islam arose after Christianity (see here which gives the founding as 622 AD), it suggests at least some contact with the outside world after Christianity began. Furthermore, after telling the story recorded by Skrefsrud, the translator of the above book adds additional legends and suggests (see pg. 14) that the language used to describe creation in one of those legends sounds Christian, though the source of that material is unclear to me. On the other hand, to me 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 in the Bodding source doesn’t closely follow the history from Genesis. The story does start with the the world being only water with land under it and the creator making several animals, and forming people from the ground, but then the story diverges. The sculpted people are trampled by the “Day-horse” (which may be the sun according to footnote 2 on pg. 3). Then birds are made instead. When the birds have no food, the god asks help from various animals to bring up dirt with an earthworm finally putting dirt on the back of a tortoise, which is where all land comes from. 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 and then carry the people there. It’s only after that point that the part of the story involving “Lita” and the humans making alcohol begins. There is then population growth and evil, the destruction of the world, and living on a large plain and dividing into families again. After that 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 so most 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.

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), and the rebellion against God at Babel (see Genesis 11:1-8](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+11%3A1-8&version=NKJV), 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.

According to pg. 253 in Gray, Louis Herbert, The Mythology of All Races. Vol. XII. Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1964 there is speculation that there was a common language spread across southeast Asia at one point, but what that language was isn’t clear.

For the creation story of the Kachins, which includes earth being formed from a fog, see pgs. 263-264 in Gray, Louis Herbert, The Mythology of All Races. Vol. XII. Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1964. The story goes on with a summary of lots of other spirits and eventually the land being formed into a place for humans by one being with a hammer who lived on a mountain.

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 in Gray, Louis Herbert, The Mythology of All Races. Vol. XII. Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1964.

The Kachin story of animals eating the plant of life is found on pgs. 296-297 in Gray, Louis Herbert, The Mythology of All Races. Vol. XII. Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1964. 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.

For two gourds bringing both death and passion into the world, see pgs. 288-290 in Gray, Louis Herbert, The Mythology of All Races. Vol. XII. Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1964.

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 in Gray, Louis Herbert, The Mythology of All Races. Vol. XII. Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1964.

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.

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.

For a story about a brother and sister surviving a flood in a sealed drum, see pg. 305 here.

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.

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.

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.

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 in Gray, Louis Herbert, The Mythology of All Races. Vol. XII. Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1964.

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 in Gray, Louis Herbert, The Mythology of All Races. Vol. XII. Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1964 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 that don’t show much connection with Genesis and notes 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.

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 pgs. 267-268 in Gray, Louis Herbert, The Mythology of All Races. Vol. XII. Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1964.). 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 lakes came from water trapped high in the mountains during the Flood described in the history in Genesis.

Not all stories of language confusion sound like the history in Genesis. In one found on pg. 267 in Gray, Louis Herbert, The Mythology of All Races. Vol. XII. Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1964 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 up on a plateau as recorded on pgs. 285-286 in the same source given above. That doesn’t sound much like Genesis either, though the mention of a plateau could be a recollection of a time when water was in the lowlands, though that is only my speculation.

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.

For the Persians ruling parts of India, see Esther 1:1.

For an overview of the spread of Greek civilization and the invasions of Alexander the Great, see here.

For the area covered by the Roman empire, see here.

For a the fall of the Roman empire in the west, see here. Before this fall, the Roman empire split into eastern and western parts (see here). The eastern, Byzantine, empire spoke Greek and lasted until it was conquered by the Ottomans in 1453 AD (see World Encyclopedia entry here).

For the background of Josephus, see here.

For Josephus’ comment about Greek renaming nations around them, see sentence beginning, “The Greeks who became the authors of such mutations,” here. It is unclear if Josephus’ identifications are all correct as scholars don’t always agree with him (see later show notes) but it does give a lead to use in trying to figure out where Japheth’s kids went.

For a list of Josephus’ sources, see here.

For references that connect Togarmah to Hittite and Assyrian inscriptions, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For the Hittites living in Asia minor, see reference here. For the Taurus mountains reaching to Lake Van, near Armenia, see here. I left out the reference to Armenia in this case as the comment regarding the Halys river in the above commentary is also in central Turkey, so the emphasis appeared to be on that region rather than the direction of Armenia, though it did mention that the Armenians apparently trace their ancestry back to Togarmah. There is also a reference in Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 170-171). Pacific Press Publishing Association to Assyrian trading colonies that appear to be related to Togarmah located in central or south eastern Turkey.

Josephus says that the descendants of Togarmah were called the Phrygians (see sentence containing, “Thrugramma the Thrugrammeans,” here. The note on pg. 541 here says that Phrygia had fluid borders but extended to the center of Asia minor.

For a list of Jewish scholars cited as connecting the Turks to Togarmah, see the note on Genesis 10:3 here.

The tradition Togarmah settled in Armenia is given by Moses of Chorene from the 400s AD (which like most ancient documents, may or may not be accurate, see pgs 897-898 here) and says that Haik, the ancestor of the Armenians was the son of Thorgom the son of Gomer (see note on Genesis 10:3 here. Several sources come to this conclusion, though it is not clear how many rely on Moses of Chorene. See notes on Genesis 10:3, here and here. See also note on Genesis 10:3 here which mentions a number of alternatives including Cappadocia in Asia Minor and Crimea among others before concluding that Armenia is the general conclusion based on Moses of Chorene. Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers suggests that Togarmah was probably either Scythian (see other show notes) or Armenian. Armenia today is smaller than it was in the ancient past as noted by the entry on pg. 564 here.

Scholars suggest, based on Greek tradition and the similarity in language, that the Phrygians originally came from the region around Greece, not from central Asia. Taking all this into account, and noting the local legends in Armenia suggest descent from Togarmah, I’m inclined to say that Togarmah’s descendants lived from central Turkey, Asia Minor to modern Armenia. As for the Phrygian element, I wonder if the descendants of Togarmah and emigrants from Greece called the Phrygians occupied the same areas in central Asia Minor and mixed with one another, leading to Josephus identifying Togarmah’s descendants as the Phrygians, but this is my speculation. See note on Genesis 10:3, here where the options span the region from Turkey to Armenia.

The name “Riphath” is no longer known in the world according to the note on Genesis 10:3, here. For Josephus’ reference to Riphath’s children being called the Paphlagonians, see sentence starting, “So did Riphath found,” here. See also note on Genesis 10:3, here. Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association notes that Paphlagonia’s capitol was Sinope, located on the Black sea coast according to the article here.

For the suggestion that the Rhipaean mountains were named after Riphath, see notes on Genesis 10:3 here and here. For an entry on the Rhipaean mountains, see here.

In place of “Riphath,” 1 Chronicles 1:6 says “Diphath.” The commentary note on Genesis 10:3, here points out that the letters “R” and “D” are very similar in Hebrew. A similar difference can be seen in “Dodanim” and “Rodanim” that came up in the last episode. See also note on Genesis 10:3 here.

For the Riphaean mountains being at the edge of Greek geography, and considered somewhat mythical, see here.

For one commentary suggested that the Riphaean mountains were what we call the Carpathians in and around modern-day Romania (see note on Genesis 10:3, here. For the Carpathians being in modern-day Romania, see map here and definition here). The more common belief that the Riphaean mountains are the Ural mountains, see chapter 24 of Pliny, here (and notes) and book 7.3 of Strabo’s geography here with footnote 32. See also note on Genesis 10:3, here that considers all the identifications, from the Paphlagonians to the Caspian sea, to be “uncertain.”

For Ashkenaz settling in Armenia, see the commentary note on Genesis 10:3 here that points out that Ashkenaz is named in Jeremiah 51:27 in connection with Ararat which people link to the area in and around Armenia. See also notes on Genesis 10:3, here, here, and here. as well as Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.

For the ancient Assyrian reference to the “Ashkuza” who lived south of modern-day Armenia and might be connected to the descendants of Ashkenaz, see 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. 87–88). Review and Herald Publishing Association as well as Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 170). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

For reference to locations named one form or another of “Ascania,” see the note on Genesis 10:3 here. See book 12 section 3 here for a reference to an “Ascanian Lake,” and book 14 section 5 for reference to an Ascanian lake, river, and village in Mysia here. For the location of Mysia, see entry on pg. 464 here. See also note on Genesis 10:3 here that mentions locations named Ascanius or Ascania in Bithynia in northwestern Asia minor (see entry on pg. 12 here).

According to footnote 1 at the bottom of pg. 25 here, the Black Sea was originally called “Axenus” which meant “unfriendly.” For speculation that “Axenus” is related to Ashkenaz, see notes on Genesis 10:3 here, here and here as well as Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. See also note on Genesis 10:3, here, though this is a summary of what others think.

The commentary note on Genesis 10:3, here mentions a reference by Pliny (unclear if it is the elder or the younger) who spoke of the “Ascanitici” living on the shores of the Paulus Maeotis, what we call the Sea of Azov today (see here) but I couldn’t find other references to this people when briefly searching Pliny though the location on the north side of the Black sea fits in the right region for where Ashkenaz’ descendants might’ve settled.

Josephus says that the Greeks called Ashkenaz’s descendants the Rheginians (see sentence containing, “Of the three sons of Gomer,” here) but the only reference I found to that was a scholar who is listed in the note on Genesis 10:3, here who connected that name to Rhegae, a town south of the Caspian sea.

Various sources link the Scythians to both Ashkenaz, Gomer’s son, and Magog, one of Japheth’s sons mentioned in Genesis 10:2. See the full show note on this subject when addressing Magog later in this episode.

For the Scythians as warriors who controlled regions of the middle east and Greece until being limited to north of the Black sea around Crimea, see here. That source says their culture disappeared around 300 B.C., but Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 170). Pacific Press Publishing Association suggests they spread into Russia and Siberia. For an overview of the Scythians, see here. For the suggestion that Gomer’s children extended into “Muscovy and Germany” see note on Genesis 10:3 here.

For “Ashkenaz” being a Jewish name for “Germany,” see the notes on Genesis 10:3 here, here, and here with the latter calling the identity of the Germans as descendants of Ashkenaz uncertain, but probably right. This identification stems from the middle ages according to note on Genesis 10:3 here. The article here equates “Ashkenaz” with “Germany” in Hebrew. There’s also a reference in the note on Genesis 10:3, here that the Germans may have been a colony from Ashkenaz based on material found in Diodorus Siculus, a Greek writer from around 2000 years ago, though that article notes that Diodorus isn’t considered reliable.

One commentary, in it’s note on Genesis 10:3 here, also suggests that the name “Scandinavia” could have connection to “Ashkenaz” as well as the word “Saxon” and possibly even the source of the name “Asia.” To me, the “Saxon” link isn’t much of a stretch as they also lived in Germany (see here) where Ashkenaz’s descendants might’ve settled, and Scandinavia is plausible, too, given how close it is to Germany, but this was the only commentary that made these links so it doesn’t appear to be a common identification.

For the Assyrian records from around 1100 BC of “Tapal” or “Tabal” and “Muski” or “Mushku” as allies who tried to conquer Mesopotamia see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 1136). Review and Herald Publishing Association and Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association which contains essentially the same entry. The “Tubal” reference in that source doesn’t make it clear that the inscriptions are Assyrian, but that appears to be the case based on the “Meshech” entry. Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 170). Pacific Press Publishing Association mentions that the Hittites might’ve called Tubal “Tapala” while and the Assyrians called Tubal “Tapal” and Meshech “Mushku.”

For the descendants of Tubal and Meshech settling in Turkey after their failed invasion of Mesopotamia, see entries for Tubal and Meshech in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 270–272). Review and Herald Publishing Association. The statement in that entry that this where classical Greek authors came to know about them I assume refers to people like Herodotus who talk about the Tibareni and Moschi as referenced in note on Genesis 10:1 here.

For some reason, the descendants of Tubal and Meschech are linked together, including being listed with one another in Ezekiel 38. Scholars tie “Tubal” to the “Tibareni” and “Meschech” to the “Moschians,” both tribes who lived in the north east part of Turkey. See note on Genesis 10:1-2 here, notes on Genesis 10:2 here, here, and here, note on Genesis 10:3, here and here and Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. The Bible also mentions them as people who live far away in Isaiah 66:19 and Psalm 120:5 and in note on Genesis 10:2, here

Tubal, whom Josephus calls “Thobel” founded a people known as the “Iberes” according to the sentence beginning “Thobel founded the…” here. At first glance this would appear to be a reference to Spain, and the Iberian peninsula, but there was also a kingdom of the Iberes around what is today Georgia in central Asia. For more, see here. The commentary note on Genesis 10:2, here makes that connection, but the note on Genesis 10:2, here confuses the Iberia of central Asia with the one in Spain. The distinction is pointed out by Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 196). Appendix 3. Kindle Edition. Even so, the note on Genesis 10:3, here suggests that Tubal’s descendants also gave their name to a place in Albania and ultimately may have been the source of the Iberians in Spain, too.

The Moschians lived in northeast Asia Minor as stated in an earlier show note. Josephus also says they lived in Cappadocia which is in central Turkey. Josephus also references a city named Mazaca that used to be the name of their whole nation (see sentence containing, “the Mosocheni were founded,” here. It’s not clear where Mazaca was in Cappadocia, but it could’ve been the same as the home of the Moschians as the reference to Pliny in the note on Genesis 10:3 here refers to the Moschians themselves as being in northeast Cappadocia suggesting that northeast Asia minor and northeast Cappadocia overlapped.

For the suggestion that Tiras went around to the east of the Black Sea and then north, see note on Genesis 10:1-2 here.

For the connection between Tiras and the Turusha, a part of the “Sea Peoples” of Egyptian history, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 170). Pacific Press Publishing Association., Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 1125). Review and Herald Publishing Association., and Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the connection between Tiras and the Taurus mountains, see note on Genesis 10:2, here.

While noting Josephus’ connection between Tiras and Thrace, the note on Genesis 10:2, here says it is more common to point to Tiras’ descendants as pirates in the Aegean sea. The entry in Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 1125). Review and Herald Publishing Association says that Herodotus called them the Tursenoi. The note in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association and it links Tiras to both these pirates in the Aegean and to the Tyrsenians of Italy.

Scholars try to link the Tyrrheni to both Tarshish, Japheth’s grandson through Javan (as I discussed in the last episode) or to Tiras. As far as who the Tyrrheni were, one suggestion points to them as one part of the early inhabitants of Greece, called the “Pelasgians” (see note on Genesis 10:2, here as well as definition of Pelasgians here). Other references place them in Italy rather than in Greece and suggest they might be the forebears of the Etruscans (see note on Genesis 10:2 in Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 108–123). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.). The reference in Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 170). Pacific Press Publishing Association also mentions the possible link between the Tyrrheni and the Etruscans, but notes that they only settled Italy around 800 BC, leaving ample time for them to have also been in Greece and other places between then and the dispersion from Babel, but this is my speculation. See also Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association that links Tiras to both these pirates in the Aegean and to the Tyrsenians of Italy.

For Josephus’ reference to Tiras, who he calls “Thiras” as the father of the Thracians, see sentence containing, “Thiras also called those whom,” here. Josephus’ link is referenced by the note on Genesis 10:1-2 here, the note on Genesis 10:3, here, and the note on Genesis 10:2 here which also says that this link is part of Jewish tradition. The note on Genesis 10:2, here refers to the Tiras-Thrace connection as “general consent.” It is also supported by the comment on Genesis 10:2, here and mentioned as a possibility by Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 10:2, note. Zondervan.

The notes from Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 170). Pacific Press Publishing Association also mention that Tiras might be connected to “The Taruisha” and therefore linked to ancient Troy, and a reference comes up to the Thracians being involved in the start of the city of Troy here. From a geographic standpoint, this makes sense as it is near to where the Thracians lived and the region of the Tursenoi pirates both of whom scholars suggest were descendants of Tiras (see other show notes). If that is the case, however, it would appear that the city and region of Troy were related to the descendants of Tiras, but the eventual royal family stemmed from Dardanus (if the Greek lore discussed in the last episode is accurate). See also Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 196). Appendix 3. Kindle Edition who makes the potential connection between Troy and Tiras as well as supporting other theories about Tiras’ descendants found in other sources and mentioned earlier.

For a description of the Thracians as “wild and warlike” see here.

For the description of the Thracians as red-haired and blue-eyed according to Xenophanes of Colophon, see pg. 131 here. There is also a reference to that word here as a definition of a word that also means flame-colored and yellowish-red (see also on pg. 1350, lower right, here. For the quote in the original Greek, see on line 10 on pg. 36 here. See also pg. 24 (fragment 16 in Greek) and pg. 90 (discussion of fragment 16) here.

For the geographic limits of Thrace, see the description on pg. 885 here.

For scholars who refer to a river in ancient Thrace as both “Athyras” and “Atyras” and suggest it reflects Tiras’ name, see note on Genesis 10:2 here and note on Genesis 10:3, here. For a reference to the Athyras river being in Thrace and near Byzantium (modern Istanbul), see pg. 310 here. For the Dniester river previously being called the “Tyras” river, see “Dniester” entry on pg. 349 here as well as Strabo here and footnote. For the suggestion that the river was named after Tiras, see pg. 48 here as well as pg. 307 here and pg. 89 here. The city Tiraspol in Moldova was named after the ancient name of the river and, at least in English, is spelled identically to the name Tiras found in Genesis. The modern city was founded in just the last few hundred years, but has a history as an ancient Greek colony (see “Tiraspol” entry here.

In trying to trace the Thracians further through history, there was one northern Thracian tribe known as the “Getae” (see here, though the article here suggests that there was some distinction between them and the Thracians). One commentary (see note on Genesis 10:2, here) suggested that these “Getae” were the ancestors of the Goths and therefore the forefathers of the Scandinavians. Digging into this question, that idea appears to come from Jerome, though Jerome says others had made the link before he did (see pg. 50 here. The later authors Cassiodorus whose work is summarized by Jordanes suggests the history of the Goths is the same as the history of the Getae (see summary of book here. Apparently this link between the Goths and the Getae hasn’t really been supported since the 1950s according to footnote 5 on pg. 231 here. The modern perspective doesn’t have much to offer as an alternative, though, only suggesting that the Getae-Goth link is wrong (see note on “Goth” entry on pg. 272 here. Jordanes claims that the Goths originally came from Scandinavia, but from a Biblical perspective, they would’ve first had to migrate to Scandinavia from Babel (see here and pg. 381 here. In short, we can only confidently trace Tiras as far as the Thracians by means of Josephus, but not further. For a further discussion of the history of connecting the “Getae” to the “Goths” see pgs. 28-29 here.

In the Illiad, the story of the Trojan war (see article from UXL Encyclopedia of World Mythology here), Homer mentions the Thracians as a group involved in the war on the side of the Trojans (see reference on first page of article here as well as the Illiad book 10 here). In the course of the story, Homer refers to “Ares” the Greek god of battle, but Ares wasn’t popular in Greece (see here). His home was actually in Thrace (see pg. 169 here), and he, or some similar god, was one of the main gods of the Thracians (see pg. 455 here which states that “Ares” was popular in Thrace and notes that the planet Mars is named after him). In addition, the term “Thrax” was a synonym for someone from Thrace (see here) and according to pg. 95 here “Thrax” was also a name for Ares. Furthermore, when Homer talks about Ares in the Illiad, he uses the phrase “Thouros Ares” at least a couple of times (see examples in chapter 5 around line 505 in Greek and English and in chapter 24 around line 495 in Greek and English) with one source suggesting it was used 11 times (see here(no page number, search “thouros”)). The phrase is translated in those sources as either “furious Ares” or “wild Ares.” Elsewhere the word “thouros” is translated as “unbridled” and means “violent” or “raging” according to note found here(no page number, search for term “thourios”) but a few scholars from books written in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s suggest the phrase “Thouros Ares” is a way of referring to the Thracian god Mars, probably meaning the Thracian god of war, and that “Thouros” is just a version of the name “Tiras” (see footnote 21 on pg. 318 here, pg. 683 here, pg. 88 here with a copy of that material presented by Jonathan Edwards on pg. 702 of the book here). Taking that link a step further, Noah Webster, of Webster’s dictionary fame, suggested that this “Thouros” eventually became “Thor,” the thunder god of Scandinavia, and later, of the Vikings (see pgs. 99-100 here for Webster’s comments and here as well as pg. 91 in Wickersham, John M., Myths and Legends of the World vol. 3. MacMillan Reference, 2000 for information on Thor). Digging into this idea by searching references to “Thouros,” the name is linked with Mars in a few places. First, in the context of discussing the Germanic god “Tyr,” on pg. 102 of the French paper here that was written in 1872, it refers to the planet Mars as something known in Greek as “thouros” which means “burning” and is very similar to the name of a barbarian god of war (translation provided by Google Translate, though it translated “Mars” as “March.” Given the context of a planet, I assumed “Mars” to be the correct translation). In addition, you find a reference on pg. 1509 here that also says the Greek name for the planet Mars was “Thouros,” a definition confirmed on pg. 413 here. The entry here in Greek for the “god of destruction” gives Ares as an alternate name for Mars. Meanwhile, the idea that “Thouros” was a name is disputed by the entry note on pg. 91 here written and in 1894. The word “thouros” in the Greek-English lexicon appears on pg. 680 here and notes that “thouros” means “rushing, raging, impetuous, and furious” and is always used as an epithet for “Ares,” meaning either a descriptor or an euphemistic term. From all of this, as best I can tell, the idea that “Thouros” in the Illiad is a name for “Tiras” was a relatively common idea from the 1600s to the 1800s, including as a commentary note on Genesis 10:2 here that directly links “Tiras” to “Thuras” and a more generic note that the Thracians worshiped a god named “Thuras” in the note on Genesis 10:2 here. After this period, though, there’s no mention of that theory. I don’t know if the idea was debunked and scholars decided “thouros” was just an adjective used to refer to Ares, or if it disappeared for some other reason. At this point I can’t find anything that either confirms or explains why the theory vanished.

In the same note that discusses “Thuras,” the note on Genesis 10:2 here suggests that Tiras was also worshiped under the name “Odrysus.” This is also mentioned on pg. 683 here and pg. 281 here. How “Odrysus” and “Tiras” are related is explained on pg. 89 here. Researching “Odrysus” it was a Thracian kingdom in the 400s BC according to article here. It is also mentioned as one of the previous names of Hadrianopolis in this entry. Given that the link between “Odrysus” and “Tiras” is supported by the same references that note “Thouros” or “Thuras” and “Tiras,” and that the idea isn’t found more recently, it is likewise an uncertain claim.

I talked about Dardanus as the forefather of the Trojans in the last episode. The reference on pg. 90 here speculates that Tiras might be the forefather of the Trojans given that “Tros” has all the same consonants as “Tiras” (Trs), an idea that is also offered on pg. 702 here (though given the similar language, I think the second source depended on the first one for its information). The legends of Dardanus as the forefather of Tros comes from the Illiad book 20 here(with plenty of mythology mixed in) where Aeneas is speaking.

For background on Snorri Sturluson, see here. For more detail about the Prose Edda and Proetic Edda, the major sources of our knowledge of Norse legends, see later show note.

In the Prose Edda (see full text here) Snorri talks about the history of the world and places the origin of those who became Scandinavians in Troy.

As for why Thor is given by Snorri as the forefather of Odin rather than Odin as the father of Thor, as it is generally described, the author on pgs. 70, 71, and 74 here suggest that there was a shift from Thor being the more important god to Odin, with Odin perhaps being favored by the nobility of the region, leading to a shift of position with Odin becoming the father rather than the son. It is interesting to note, as that author states, that the non-noble people still preferred Thor.

Snorri describes both Thor and Odin as people though they are commonly remembered as Norse gods (see pg. 32 here as well as here and here). Snorri doesn’t say, though, how these people came to be worshiped as gods as stated on pg. 33 here. Another author, Saxo Grammaticus, living near the time of Snorri and writing a history of the Danes, also put forward the idea that the Norse gods were just men but he suggested that there had once been giants, but the second class of men who had mental power (called divination, I assume a reference to magic) defeated the giants and came to be considered gods. Saxo also says that Thor and Odin knew sorcery and came to control people who then thought of them as gods. Saxo doesn’t claim impartiality. In one story where Odin seeks advice from prophets he says that “Godhead that is incomplete is often in need of human help,” making it clear that if Odin were a real god, he wouldn’t need human advice. For this detail and others about Saxo and his history, see pgs. 34-36 here. For a summary of Snorri and Saxo’s claims, see pg. 36 here where the author sums up their position by noting that either magical power or some other ability allowed people like Odin and Thor to make others worship them as gods. This could be another example of famous ancestors eventually being worshiped as gods (see earlier episodes in the Grandfathers of History series for other examples), though Snorri’s record comes after Christianity had already spread to Iceland (see article here for Snorri writing in the 1200s when Iceland became Christian closer to 1000 AD) so Snorri may have been undermining Norse mythology because of his belief in Christianity.

For the history of Odin as a man according to the legend found in the early part of Snorri’s Ynglinga-saga at the start of the Heimskringla, see summary on pgs. 33-34 here. For the original text of the Yngling-saga of the Heimskringla in English, see here with part 10 denoting Odin’s death. Why this history has Odin giving land to Thor (see section 6 in link above) rather than Odin as Thor’s descendant as stated in the Prologue in the Prose Edda (see pg. 7 here also written by Snorri is unclear unless Snorri was simply reporting different legends (though that’s only my speculation). In either case, the origin of the “god” is given as an ancient heroic man. Another reference to Thor as Odin’s son is found on pg. 65 here.

Though some might say that the beginning of the Prose Edda that describes Thor and Odin as people rather than gods might’ve been written by someone other than Snorri, this doesn’t appear to be the case since later in the book Snorri tells his readers not to believe the stories of the gods other than as described at the start of the book. In other words, he tells them not to believe in the gods other than as a memory of ancient people. (see pg. 31 here). The author of the above reference thinks this is just an example of euhemerism rather than necessarily accurate, a position echoed here. The author also notes that for hundreds of years it was common to argue that pagan gods were memories of men who were aided by demons or magic as mentioned on pg. 31 here. It is argued on pg. 59 here that this section of Snorri’s work might be invented as an attempt to give the Scandinavians their own version of the Roman Aeneas. For more on Aeneas, see Episode 18.

Though it is, perhaps, a tenuous link, it is interesting to me that both Thor and the Thracians are described as having red hair with references that come from different sources. This makes me lean toward the conclusion that they were related, though that is simply my speculation. For Thor having red hair see pg. 161 here and for a red beard, see pg. 172 here and pg. 80 here. I couldn’t find whether this description of Thor was based on Snorri’s comments or another Norse mythology source that talks about Thor, but even if Snorri was the source (and therefore a potentially Christian influenced source) he would still have needed access to some ancient reference to Xenophanes, or another now-lost writer, (which I doubt he had) who knew that the Thracians were described as having red hair (see earlier show note) in order to accurately “make up” his history of Thor with that description. As such, I think that Thor with red hair and the Thracians having red hair are independent references. Whether this means that the Thracians were related to the Scandinavians is an open question, though, as tribal mixing and long time frames are involved, leaving lots of opportunities for the genes for red hair to sneak into any people group.

As an additional interesting note, Snorri also suggests that the Aesir, as the collection of Norse gods was called, really means “men of Asia.” on pg. 32 here.

The reference to pagan gods as one humans is not a new idea. There are sources from the early Christian era that also suggest that the Greek gods, too, were originally only human. One source is Lactantius who wrote around 300 AD. The article above mentions that Lactantius was less a good Christian theologian and better a debunking paganism (see his argument against the idea of many gods on pgs. 23-25 here. For some of his undermining of paganism, see pgs. 48-49 in the above source where he mentions Euhemerus and then goes on to pgs. 51-54 where he discusses Jupiter and Saturn as actual humans. Anobius, another writer from the same era, argued that the heathen gods couldn’t be God because they are represented as having been born (i.e. didn’t always exist). Arnobius was once a teacher of Lactantius (see pg. xi here when both men were still adherents of paganism and both converted separately (for Arnobius’ comment, see here). An even earlier reference comes from Tertullian (see Encyclopedia of Religion entry here) around 200 AD who refers to the ancient authors always talking about Saturn as a man, not a god (see pg. 36 here).

Genesis lists three sons of Gomer, but it doesn’t say that those were his only sons. Perhaps they were the first sons, or the most well known early in history. It could also be that the descendants who went by some version of Gomer did it even though they were descended through one of the three sons Genesis names, but this is all my speculation.

The note on Genesis 10:2, here refers to descendants of Gomer living in Pontus in Asia Minor, a region along the coast of the Black Sea according to information here. The note on Genesis 10:2, here, talks about them being on the shores of the Black and Caspian seas. The note on Genesis 10:2, here, says they lived between Madai and Scythia, which would probably sandwich them between the Medes (see later in episode) to the south and east and the Scythians in Ukraine and Russia. This fits with Ezekiel 38:6 that puts Gomer and his son Togarmah to the north (see note on Genesis 10:2, here). I say that “some” of Gomer’s kids traveled north, as there is a reference in Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers that the descendants of Gomer were driven out of their homes in the 7th century BC by the Scythians and fled into western Asia Minor before being pushed out of there. This suggests to me that while some traveled north as supported by show note details below, if Easton’s comment is correct, some must’ve stayed behind until the Scythian invasion hundreds of years later. For more on the Scythian-Cimmerian conflict, see note here.

For Sargon’s reference to the descendants of Gomer as the “gimirraia” or “gimarraja” see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 169). Pacific Press Publishing Association. For reference to “Gamir” or Gimirrai” see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 428). Review and Herald Publishing Association and Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association. That commentary also suggested that there was a region in Armenia named “Gamir” today, but I couldn’t find references to it in a brief search of the map.

For various commentaries connecting the descendants of Japheth’s son Gomer to the Cimmerians, see note on Genesis 10:2, here (which also attributes the name of the Crimean peninsula to them), note on Genesis 10:5 here, and note on Genesis 10:2, here. See also Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 10:2, note. Zondervan who affirms that Gomer’s children became the Cimmerians and Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers, as well as see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association. In addition to the Cimmerians giving their name to Crimea, what is today known as the “Kerch strait” on one side of Crimea used to be called the Cimmerian Bosporus according to the article here.

For the descendants of Gomer being connected to the Kimbri of Germany, see note on Genesis 10:1-2 here. The note on Genesis 10:2 here connects Denmark to the Cimbri and points out that Jutland had the name “Chersonesus Cimbrica,” something mentioned here also. See also note on Genesis 10:2, here and Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Connecting the descendants of Gomer to settlers in France, Spain, and Britain, see note on Genesis 10:1-2 here which says the descendants of Gomer in Britain called them selves the Kymry, Cambri, and Cumbri. The first page of part 1 of the book here suggests, with footnote references on that page, that it is generally believed that the Welsh descendants of Gomer came to Britain from France about 300 years after the Flood. The note on Genesis 10:2 here says the Welsh called themselves the Cumery, Cymro, and Cumeri as late as the mid 1700s when that commentary was written (see when commentary was written on pg. 21 here). Further support can be found in note on Genesis 10:2, here. See also note on Genesis 10:2, here and Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. While ancient authors don’t call the inhabitants of Britain or Ireland “celts” we know that they spoke a similar language to people living on the continent according to the note on pg. 586 here.

For the descendants of Gomer generally being considered the Celts, see note on Genesis 10:1-2 here and note on Genesis 10:2, here. See also Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. The note on Genesis 10:3, here identifies the descendants of Riphath as the Celts, though it is unclear whether only the descendants of Riphath became the Celts or if there are many branches of Gomer’s descendants (both through the sons Genesis names, and perhaps others it doesn’t name, if any) who called themselves Celts.

Julius Caesar notes that the people in Gaul referred to themselves as “Celts” (see pg. 585 here).

According to the note on Genesis 10:2, here, Josephus suggests that the the "Galatians” used to be called “Gomerites” (see sentence containing, “For Gomer founded,” here). It is suggested in the article here that the Galatians were later invaders who came down from Gaul in the 3rd century B.C. If the name “Galatia” is connected to Gomer, and Gomer is the forefather of the Celts, then these settlers of Galatia in the 3rd century B.C. would be descendants of Gomer, even if they went all the way through Europe and 2000 years of history before returning to Asia minor and settling there.

I use the title “English channel” even though “English” comes from “England” which is named after the Angles (see here). who hadn’t showed up in history yet.

For an overview of the region people think used to be above sea level between Britain and the rest of Europe, see here and here which also mentions some artifacts that have been found. See also the article here that talks about carved bones that have been found and here that talks about stumps and other artifacts.

The best summary reconstruction I’ve seen of a creation-supporting understanding of the environment and climate after the Flood is found here. To me, it is a theory that offers a well-reasoned explanation for how the ice age evidence fits both physics and a Biblical time line. For other useful articles, see here, here, and here for a discussion of the effects of volcanoes during and after the Flood as well as the theory of impacts from things like meteors and asteroids. For other articles on the topic, see here, here, here, and here. For ongoing challenges for creation-supporting theories of the physics of the Flood, see here.

For a previous discussion of volcanoes and the Flood, see Episode 13.

For more on Tambora, see show notes on Episode 1. To compare the size of the Toba eruption compared to 1815’s Tambora eruption I used the amount of ash emitted. Tambora emitted an estimated 36 cubic miles (see here) and Toba an estimated 670 cubic miles of debris (see here) making Toba about 18 times larger. The article here suggests that Toba, “produced over 50 times the stratospheric aerosols as Tambora.” For another reference to Toba, from a non-Biblical viewpoint, see here and here.

For the definition of a glacier, see here.

For an “ice age” defined as extensive glaciers, see here.

The debate over the end of the land link connecting Britain with the rest of Europe depends on whether you follow a model that accepts the long ages proposed by secular researchers or one given by those who accept the time line of history given in the Bible. Assuming the Bible time line to be correct, as best I can understand from the various articles (see earlier show note), the land link between Britain and the rest of Europe was either present until the end of the Ice Age when it was flooded or destroyed or it was flooded by the ocean until the ice build-up from the Ice Age lowered sea level enough to expose it before being re-flooded and finally eroded away at the end of the ice age. For a discussion of models about how the land linking Britain and Europe was ultimately submerged, see here and here. For the suggestion that it was due to a flood of water from a North Sea lake during the Ice Age, see here. For the comment that the low-lying land connection was only briefly accessible when the Ice Age had removed enough water to lower sea level, see here, and for the suggestion that the Flood of Noah’s day did most of the work but the canyon formed at the English channel was blocked by debris until being finally formed at the end of the Ice Age, see here. I don’t put particular emphasis on any of the mechanisms, only that there appears to have been a land link between Britain and the rest of Europe, and that the ocean destroyed it at some point.

For hippos found in Leeds in the middle of Britain, see here. For a news article from 2004 mentioning the larger size of a hippo found near Norfolk, see here. For more, see pgs. 797-799 here. There is also the mention of hippo remains found at 3 more sites on pg. 235 here with what appears to be a reference to 4 different sites in the table on pg. 237 at that reference. Pg. 240-241 refers to “numerous” examples of hippo remains found in England and Wales and describes how the climate must have been warmer. In addition, pg. 279 here notes how warm it would need to be for animals like the hippo to survive in England. For a Biblical perspective explaining hippos in England, see the articles here and here.

To be clear, the idea that some of Gomer’s descendants may have crossed to the modern island of Britain via Doggerland before it submerged when the Ice Age ended and sea levels rose is my speculation. Those descendants may have come by boat rather than by land even when it was a peninsula or they may have come after the English Channel formed rather than migrating across on dry land.

Earlier, I mentioned that some scholars identify Ashkenaz’s descendants as the Scythians. See, for instance, 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 10:3, note. Zondervan., and Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 170). Pacific Press Publishing Association. There is some dispute, though, since Josephus suggests the Scythians were the descendants of Magog (see sentence beginning, “Magog founded those that…” here, another of Japheth’s sons that Genesis mentions. Other sources supporting this Scythian connection to Magog include notes on Genesis 10:2, here, here and here that links Magog’s descendants to both a northern tribe and notes the common connection to the Scythians, and note on Genesis 10:3, here. It’s possible both of these theories are true. The Scythians could be descended from both Ashkenaz and Magog’s descendants. Cooper notes that there is evidence connecting Ashkenaz to the Scythians and suggests that Magog’s descendants might’ve been absorbed and combined with Ashkenaz’s children (see Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 194). Appendix 3. Kindle Edition.). This fits with the comment from Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association suggesting that Magog’s children may have lived north of the Black Sea near Gomer’s children, but noting that identification of Magog’s descendants is challenging. From my perspective, at some point the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth didn’t maintain perfect tribal distinctions but would’ve begun to blend, so it is possible that the Scythians were descendants of both Magog and Ashkenaz as Cooper suggests and that the descendants of Magog were absorbed into the tribe of Ashkenaz’s children since the connection between the Scythians and Ashkenaz is more certain according to Cooper (see Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 194). Appendix 3. Kindle Edition). This also fits with the comment on pg. 526 here which refers to the Scythians as having a blended ancestry. For notes on another possible branch of Magog’s family, see the next episode.

For the etymology tying “Scythian” to “Scot” through Greek, Welsh, and Saxon, see pg. 1112 here. That’s from an edition of the book written in 1898. A later edition, on pg. 990 here, makes no mention of that etymology though I don’t know if this is because the history fell out of favor or just due to condensing the material found in the book. Oddly enough, the pathway for the Scots from Scythia to Scotland appears to have gone through Ireland, with them only moving into Scotland around 500 AD (see here). For the timing of the Saxon invasion of the island of Britain, see here and here. For the island being named “Britain” see here.

For the Declaration of Arbroath that describes the Scottish nobility making a claim of independence from the English, see here. For the actual text and translation, see here where it describes their migration from “Greater Scythia.” The Scots say they came to Scotland “twelve-hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea.” Assuming the Red Sea crossing occurred in 1491 BC (see Ussher, James (2006-11-01). The Annals of the World (Kindle Locations 1338-1345). Master Books. Kindle Edition.) that would place their arrival in Scotland about 300 BC, or around 1600 years before the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320. Also, on pg. 126 here it mentions that the Scots are believed to have been an offshoot colony of Ireland. Interestingly enough, the Declaration of Arbroath also says they came via Spain and DNA testing recently suggested that the Irish are most closely linked with people from northern Spain (see here).

The written records of European history we have from the middle ages may be accurate copies of earlier documents, but without those earlier documents or another method of independently verifying the accuracy of the documents we do have, the existing records are open to the accusation that they were modified to a greater or lesser degree by Christians or other parties rather than a faithful record of what was known at the time. It is not so much that these records are wrong, just that they cannot be verified.

For Elysium as something found in the myths of Ireland and Wales but isn’t in evidence among the Celts who lived on mainland Europe though it probably existed there, too, see pg. 362 here.

For Elysium being known for a lack of death and food of youthfulness, see pgs. 376-378 here. For fruit being the most common food that gave immortality, see pg. 378.

For the Elysium having impressive trees with branches of silver and apples of gold, see pg. 380 here.

For reference to a Rowan tree guarded by a dragon and the Rowan berries healing wounds and lengthening life, see pg. 377 here. See also pg. 35 here. For a paraphrase and translation of the original story, see pgs 36-38 here.

For other foods of immortality in Celtic lore, see pg. 158-159 here as referenced from pg. 180 here.

In Celtic legend, there is also the story of the theft of apples of Hisberna as referenced on pg. 339 here citing pg. 186 in Turville-Petre, E. O. G., Myth and Religion of the North The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia, Greenwood Press, 1964 which ultimately refers to pgs. 58 and 63 here. On pg. 58, the “Garden of Hisberna” is footnoted to be the same as the “Garden of the Hesperides” which makes it appear that the story in question is influenced by Greek myth rather than an independent Celtic story, even if there are different elements.

There is also reference to a Celtic paradise of Avalon where a hazel tree grew nuts that gods and certain humans ate to maintain life, as referenced on pg. 34 here. The article here suggests that this “Avalon” might be linked rather than independent of the idea of Elysium.

For the Welsh story of the Flood, see pg. 175 here. See also pgw. 256-257 here. For the age of manuscripts with this story dating back less than 1000 years, see later show note. The note on the bottom of page 176 here suggests the story might be related to the Bible.

The most complete information we have for the legends and myths of Scandinavia are the Prose Edda and the Poetic Edda (see here). The Prose Edda was written around 1220 by Snorri Sturluson, referenced earlier when talking about Japheth’s son Tiras. Snorri was a historian and leader in Iceland and the Prose Edda was a textbook to help would-be poets understand the metaphors used in Norse poetry (see here as well as pg. 5 here). The Poetic Edda is a collection of poems that were probably composed between 800 and 1200 AD with many of them likely before 1000 AD. (see pgs. 7-8 at above reference, also note here gives 800 - 1100 AD). Christianity really only spread to Iceland between 1000 - 1200 AD (see pg. 8 at above reference) but the copies of the poems we have come from the 1300s AD (also on pg. 8) meaning that the Prose Edda and the version of the Poetic Edda we have were either written or copied down after Christianity was already present in the region. As such, we cannot know for certain whether the mythology and stories given in the Eddas offer an accurate version of Scandinavian pagan beliefs or whether those stories they tell have been influenced by Christianity. I tend to think that much of the folklore is genuine Scandinavian belief from before Christian influence, but that is only my non-expert opinion. For a good overview of the sources and timeline, see the introduction to the book here.

For the outline of the Norse creation story, see pgs. 324 - 325 here. It is unclear how there is a “north” or “south” to this “chasm” or “abyss” and the the author similarly comments that it is unclear who made the things in the north, but such is the legend. The author also suggests that the warm air that formed the life might be a sign of Christian influence, but that is their speculation.

For the ice melting and forming a cow who sent rivers or streams of milk from its udders, see pgs. 324-325 here. Four there being four rivers of milk see section IV-6 here. It’s also compared to the four rivers flowing in Eden in Genesis 2:10-14 see pg. 256 here which comes from a source specifically outlining parallels between Genesis and world mythologies and is therefore open to the accusation of bias, as am I.

It’s interesting to note from pg. 201 here that the Norse belief in night coming before day, something also believed by the Celts, suggested that the world began in darkness rather than light, just as it is stated in Genesis 1:2-3. Furthermore, the author of that source suggests this is accurate mythology implying that is an idea that doesn’t appear to be due to Christian influence.

There are also references to the idea of the earth rising out of an ocean mentioned on pg. 325 here, though that wasn’t obvious to me from the stanza the author refers to. They say that the legend goes on to talk about how the sun, moon, and stars were given their places and how the gods gave some names, events that have some parallels in Genesis.

Odin was also considered the creator of the first man and woman as well as the heaven, earth, and everything in it, though his originator role could be due to Christian influence as speculated by the author on pgs. 61 and 326 (Odin as creator) and 63 (speculation on Christian influence on Odin) here. Perhaps this would imply that as adherents of Odin came to understand Christianity, they wanted their chief god to have the same accomplishments as the Christian God, but that is just my speculation.

As pointed out by other authors regarding worship of the gods in the Roman and Greek religion, Odin, too, was born at some point and therefore couldn’t be the same as the All-Powerful God of Christianity. For reference to Odin’s birth, see pg. 63 here.

I didn’t say anything about the creation of humans according to Norse mythology in the audio, as there’s at least three versions of it. In the first two Odin and two others find either “Ash” and “Elm” or “two trees” that they shape into human beings and give various abilities to including soul, sense, heat and good color, hearing and sight, and life (for these versions, see pg. 327 here). In another version, humans are the sons of Heimdall, the god who guarded the rainbow bridge between heaven and earth, according to pg. 155 at the above source. For more on the rainbow bridge, see later show notes.

On pg. 328 here it is also mentioned that the Germans had a god who came from the earth and that the god and his son were the start of the Germans which the author suggests is similar to the giant in Norse mythology who gave birth to other giants without a woman.

For the common belief in a tree that reached to heaven among various mythologies, see pgs. 334-335 here including reference to the Norse tree having a number of similarities to this common belief. For details of the tree itself where the gods gathered every day in judgment after crossing the rainbow bridge, see pg. 23 of the above source. That page also mentions a well under the roots of the tree and pgs. 49 and 167-168 make it clear that knowledge, wisdom, and understanding were found in the well. On pg. 336 that author suggests that, despite the similarities, Yggdrasil is not derived from Christianity, though he allows that some details may be due to Christian influence. For the Yggdrasil tree being large, see here.

For the Norse gods not being immortal but having to eat apples supplied by the goddess Idunn to stay young, see pg. 22 and pg. 178: here

The name of the goddess who carried the apples of youth was Idunn. It is suggested on pg. 178 here that her name meant “renewal” or “restoration of youth.”

It’s argued that since apples were not present in Iceland and only came to Norway later when grown in the gardens of monasteries that details from the Bible have worked themselves into the story of Idunn and the apples, but the author on pg. 180 here suggests that neither the Biblical details or stories from Greece or Ireland explain the story fully and suggests that it was an original story, though it was perhaps influenced by outside sources.

For the giants coming before the gods see pgs. 324 - 325 here (Also see that Odin was descended from giants according to pg. 278 in the same reference). That source on pg. 281 also notes that there are various theories about who the giants were including earlier less civilized men who used stone tools or gods from a previous religion that the worship of Odin and other Norse gods replaced, but the author admits that these theories don’t fully work. I wonder if there is a parallel between the giants in Norse legend and the people who lived before the Flood in Genesis (see “men of renown” in Genesis 6:4) with the forefathers of the people who lived in northern Europe coming after these ancient “giants” and taking their place in people’s memories and affections, but this is just my speculation.

For the cow’s continued licking producing another being who became the grandfather of Odin, Vili, and Ve, see pgs. 324 - 325: here and pg. 256 here where the cow licks either ice or stones.

For Odin, Vili, and Ve killing Ymir, the giant formed from ice, and flooding the world with Ymir’s blood as well as the survival of only one giant and his wife or household on either a boat or a millstone, see pgs. 275-276 and 324 - 325: here and pg. 256 here. See also section IV-7 in the Prose Edda here and pg. 11 in Faulkes, Anthony. Edda. Everyman, 1987. For the translation given on pg. 35 here it defines the boat as a hollow tree trunk with a word that can also mean coffin (see footnote on that page). The comment on pg. 92 here says that the word used for “boat” is uncommon and could also be translated “cradle.”

For heaven and earth being linked by a rainbow bridge, see note on Genesis 9:13, here. See also pg. 153: here. According to the Norse legend, the rainbow as made of only three colors (see pg. 329). The gods crossed the bridge each day for judgment at the well of wisdom under the Yggdrasil tree (see earlier show note) with the bridge only being broken down when all the gods are destroyed (see pg. 329 here).

Based on a comment on pg. 336: here, there was evidently a mountain in heaven at the other end of the rainbow bridge.

Christian beliefs did not completely replace beliefs in the old Norse gods even after Christianity spread to Scandinavia. In one passage, the author mentions someone named “Helgi the Thin” who was a Christian, but still ask guidance from Thor when traveling at sea. See pg. 75 here. The author references the “Landnamabok” for this story, which describes the settlement of Iceland in the 800s-900s showing that Christian influence was in place well before Snorri wrote the Prose Edda, even if Norse religion was also present. For more on “Landnamabok” see here.

For the origin of the names of the days of the week, see Tuesday coming from the god Tyr on pg 97 here, Wednesday referring to Woden on pg. 19 here (which also mentions Woden and Odin as two names referring to the same god), Thursday referring to the god Thor as mentioned on pg. 68 and 177 here and Friday coming from the name of the godess Frigg on pgs. 176-177 here. As for the other three days of the week, they come from Rome. Saturday is named for Saturn, the chief god of the Romans. Sunday is named in honor of the sun, and Monday is named to honor to moon as mentioned here.

Regarding dwarves, legends in Denmark suggest that trolls are related to dwarves and links them to the angels who rebelled against God and were thrown out of heaven (see pg. 286 here). I think it is safe to suggest that this legend demonstrates at least some level of Christian mixing in native folklore, perhaps with people trying to figure out how the stories of the new Christian religion fit with their previous beliefs and stories.

The Norse religion believed in the destruction of the gods at some point in the future, with the idea of the end of the world coming through water and fire existing among the Celts and in Ireland as well and not due to Christian influence according to pg. 342 here. On the other hand, the author suggests on pg. 344 that the refreshing of the world into a new world likely involves at least some elements from Christianity especially citing a “Mighty one” as an example.

For the legend of the flood from Lithuania, see pg. 93 here and pg. 176 here though it is noted in the footnote on pg. 176 that there is some suspicion about whether the legend is authentic.

For the story of the Flood from Transylvania, see pgs. 177-178 here.

For the story the Voguls of the Ural mountains tell of giants who survived a flood on hollowed out tree boats, see pgs. 93-94 here and pgs. 178-179 here. For the location of the Ural mountains, see here.

There are also references at the start of the Georgian Chronicle on pg. 13 in Jones, Stephen., Kartlis Tskhovreba (A History of Georgia), Artanuji Publishing, Tblisi, 2014 that describes how Georgia was founded by Targamos the grandson of Japheth with other references to a tower in Babylon and the division of languages. While the introduction to the book suggests it was originally written in the 1000s-1100s AD (see pg. 7), the oldest manuscript of history go back to the 400s AD (see pg. 5) but in general, the existing manuscripts seem to come from the 1300s and after (see pgs. 5-10). Considering that the Georgian alphabet and literature appears to have happened at the same time as the arrival of Christianity in the country according to article here it is plausible to argue that Georgian history may have been influenced by the history in Genesis.

The author argues on pg. 363 here that the idea of Elysium existed in Celtic thought before the influence of Christianity.

For the date of the manuscript that gives most of the details we have on the Celtic paradise of Elysium, see pg. 388 here.

For reference to the burial mounts in Celtic religion being the location of gods later thought to be men (author uses “euhemerized” to describe them) see pg. 78 here. In addition, on pgs. 17-18 here the author suggests that stories that treat the Celtic gods as human is because they were modified by Christian influence. That said, while that author argues the gods were once immortal, it notes, paradoxically, that the myths also talk about their death.

Rather than suggesting a memory of Eden in the topic of immortal food, on pg. 378 here the author argues the concept of food of immortality was simply an extension of the idea that regular food gave life, so divine food must give eternal life

For the Welsh story of the Flood, see pg. 175 here. It also is mentioned in summary on pg. 441 here where it is noted that the story only goes back in our present copies to the 13th or 14th century, but it is likely much older and does not show evidence of being copied from the Genesis account. See also pg. 256-257 here.

For the fact that Snorri Sturluson was a Christian, see pg. 31 here.

Some scholars also claim that the Norse religion was influenced by Judaism and Christianity due to contact between people in the far north and Christian influences on the British Isles as stated on pg. 8 here.

For the legends from Lithuania, Southeastern Europe, and the Ural mountains, I couldn’t find references to how old they were. This could be because they are based on oral tradition rather than a manuscript, but that is just my speculation. In any case, I think it is likely that the copy we have doesn’t go back prior to the arrival of Christianity in the region, leaving those stories also open to the claim that any similarities with the history in Genesis are just due to Christian influence.

The observation that the agreement among genealogies from Britain and Iceland is a valuable evidence of the common history of the nations that inhabited those countries come from Bill Cooper in his book “After the Flood.” In supporting that claim, Cooper compiles genealogies from a number of sources. Evaluating those references, the sources come from some time in the middle ages which place them after Christian influence had spread to the region. They might be copies of older documents, but we cannot prove that without the original, so each of those sources are open to the claim of forgery or modification by Christians attempting to show that their family trees were somehow in agreement with the history in Genesis rather than an independent memory of that history Genesis records. This doesn’t mean these claims are true, only that the documents we have are not old enough to prove otherwise. That said, these documents do show some agreement… but not perfect agreement, and the question becomes, how likely was this level of similarity among kingdoms who were separated from one another and often at odds? For specifics, see Cooper’s book, “After the Flood,” specifically chapters 3, and 6-8.

For the a record of names from Iceland including a reference to Noah, see pg. 56 here. For an Anglo-Saxon reference to Noah, see pg. 239 here.

For the suggestion that the name “Sceaf” was an invented forefather of the Anglo-Saxons, and that he only shows up in king lists around 855 AD in England, and is therefore a forgery, see pg. 18 and 21 here. That page suggests that while Sceaf probably had some history as a traditional ancestor, he was only connected to Noah as a son born on Noah’s ark during the Anglo-Saxon king Alfred’s rule. In that same source, on pg. 26, it argues that Sceaf was invented as a way of strengthening the rulers of the West Saxons when it was the main alternative power to the Vikings in England.

For the suggestion that the Icelandic king lists copied from lists found in England, see pg. 58 here. See the same idea on pg. 18 of the article here that suggests that “Sceaf” as an ancestor wasn’t known in Scandinavia until the idea migrated there from England.

For the kings in at least the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England gaining their claim to royal power because of their list of ancestors, see pgs. 13 and 17 here where it points out that the king’s family history intended to show that they were descended from a god or former ruler. Later, on pg. 27, it adds that most of the old names in the king’s genealogy were brought into the list from mainland legends as a way to improve the claim to a right to rule by Anglo-Saxon kings who said they were descended from this list of ancestors. Another author, on pgs. 28 and 31 here suggests that it wasn’t how far back a family tree went that mattered, instead it was that you could show you were descended from a god and that you specifically knew the names of your ancestors, an idea also mentioned on pgs. 32-33 here. This is, presumably, in contrast to the populace in general who couldn’t trace their family tree so clearly. The Anglo-Saxons had Woden as a god during some of their history (see pg. 20 here and you see his name in their king lists (such as pg. 239 here). In fact, when the Saxons came to England in the 400s AD, Woden was their most important god and on continental Europe in the 700s AD, Woden was one of the gods that the Saxons had to renounce when they wanted to be baptized as a Christian (see pgs. 18, 38, and 68 here. According to pgs. 23-24 here, the author suggests that when the Anglo-Saxons converted to Christianity they turned their gods into men (the author noting that the Welsh and Icelandic people did the same thing). As such, while Woden, a former god, was still kept as an ancestor in seven of the eight royal family trees in England, they speculate (pg. 36) that extending that family tree was important in order to find a new god to have as the king’s forefather. Combine this with the comment on pgs. 17-18 here that the long genealogy lists were just an invention to link the king back to Biblical history, and there is a motive for a king altering the family genealogy. Whether this was easy to do is a different question. For the importance of family trees in Ireland, see later show note regarding how the genealogies were recorded and checked frequently.

On pg. 21 of the article here the author also suggests some bias in his method, making the fundamental assumption that people generally didn’t remember their ancestors and quoting a rule-of-thumb that shorter lists of ancestors are older than longer lists since people only added names to their genealogies as time went on but were unlikely to forget a name once they had it. One could also make the opposite claim, that names were forgotten as time went on and the older lists remember people further back, but that is my speculation. As for evidence, it is unclear where the belief in invented ancestors comes from other than scholars theorizing.

Among Anglo-Saxon genealogies in England, there is a name “Sceaf” who is given as a son of Noah born on the ark (see the genealogy with the spelling “Sceafing” on pg. 239 here). The article here argues on pg. 18 that “Sceaf,” mentioned as a son of Noah, is an invention of the West Saxons around 900 AD as a way to link themselves with Adam. There are some issues with this theory. The same author, on pg. 45 notes that Anglo-Saxon Christians generally believed that Noah was a real historical person, and on pgs. 14-15, he says that the Christian Anglo-Saxons knew that everyone was descended from Noah, and later in the same paragraph, the author points out that church scholars had divided the world up between Noah’s sons with Ham getting Africa, Shem gaining Asia, and Japheth controlling Europe (see pg. 15 of article above, as well as reference to Bede in footnote 8 on that page, showing that this belief was something present in Britain, not only on continental Europe). Whether or not this idea as to which son inherited which continent was true, that was evidently a belief at the time. Taking this into account, the idea that the Anglo-Saxons “invented” a fourth son of Noah and then claimed to be his descendant as a way to prove their right to rule is doesn’t make sense to me. The same article that puts forth that theory admits, on pg. 27 and 36-42 here, that the Anglo-Saxons knew that the Bible said Noah only had three sons and that they were descended from Japheth. The author mentions someone’s proposed inspiration for a fourth son (see pg. 28) then admits that the idea isn’t convincing and goes on to note (on pg. 29) that this was a contradiction to the belief that Anglo-Saxons were descended from Japheth, a son that the Bible does mention. The author then goes on (in pgs. 30-32) to imply that Sceaf was still this invented fourth son. Comments on pg. 33 note that a legitimate line of descent was important, but doesn’t explain why the “invented” list of ancestors didn’t just go back to Japheth while admitting that the rulers of other places in Europe (mentioning Wales and France) accepted that they were descended from Japheth. Cooper makes this point, too, where he notes that if the genealogy was invented, why would the forgers use a name (like “Sceaf”) that no one knew (see Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 78). Chapter 6. Kindle Edition. Cooper makes the same argument regarding “Seskef” used in the Icelandic list in Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 89). Chapter 7. Kindle Edition). The author of the earlier article, on pgs. 34-35, suggests that the link to Sceaf was to show that the Anglo-Saxons were “privileged” because they were descended from a son of Noah born on the ark and therefore had a unique relationship to Noah, but, at least to me, this isn’t a good argument. It’s only my opinion, but why would a king “invent” an extra son of Noah then claim to be descended from him if the general belief was that the Anglo-Saxons were descended from a different son? Wouldn’t this simply de-legitimize the king in the eyes of the populace, including competitors for the throne, since the king had just announced that he wasn’t really from the same family and therefore shouldn’t have the right to rule? Not only that, but Japheth would’ve been the older son, making any claims of inheritance by “Sceaf’s” descendants of lesser value. In a broader sense, the king would also have claimed that the whole nation wasn’t descended from Japheth, but from this fourth son instead, removing the whole nation from the blessing given to Japheth by Noah in Genesis 9:27 and, if Europe was given to Japheth kids (as mentioned earlier) then Anglo-Saxons claim to be descended from a different son of Noah would remove their claim to rule part of Europe. To me, the idea of inventing a fourth son doesn’t have a clear benefit and has many potential drawbacks. Instead, I’m inclined to believe that “Sceaf” was the name of a remembered ancestor, and either this “Sceaf” was a corruption of the name “Japheth” as some speculate (see later show note), or it was the name of a later descendant of Japheth (as Snorri Sturluson may suggest, see later show note mentioning “Seskef”). Moving past the name and to why these legends remember Sceaf as having been born on the ark, I wonder if it either a corrupted memory, or or the wording has been muddle (i.e. originally “who was borne (as in carried) upon the ark”), but that is purely my speculation. Regarding the “fourth son” idea on its own, Genesis 9:19 makes it clear that there were three sons of Noah, and from these sons the world was populated, leaving no room for extra sons that Genesis doesn’t mention. For other references that suggest “Sceaf” was a fourth son of Noah born on the Ark, see pg 306 here and pg. 25 here (though stating that Bede makes it clear the Anglo-Saxons were descendants of Japheth).

One of the records we have of the family tree list uses the name “Seth” rather than “Sceaf” as mentioned on pgs. 25-26 here. In that section the author refers to another scholar named “Sisam.” Cooper discusses Sisam as well and suggests a link between the last syllable of “Japheth” and “seth” quoting Sisam as speculating about a possible connection (see Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 77). Chapter 6. Kindle Edition. To see part of the original quote Cooper references, see the snippet on pg. 316 here. The author of the main paper dismisses the idea that this “Seth” was meant to be a reference to Shem and notes that the Anglo-Saxons wouldn’t connect themselves to Shem, but to Japheth, and suggests that it was confusion on the part of Asser, the author of this genealogical list, who didn’t know who “Sceaf” was. The author suggests (pg. 26) that most copies of the list use the name “Sceaf,” and moves past any significance to the name “Seth,” though he does note that another Anglo-Saxon kingdom named “Scyf” as the ancestor and made him the son of Shem, though he argues that list is a muddled copy of the main list that mentions “Sceaf.”

See earlier comment in introduction to “forging” idea. Copied below in italics:

As far as the lists being similar between Iceland1. and the Anglo-Saxons, while some scholars argue that Iceland copied English lists (see earlier show note), Cooper notes that the lists come from places that are separated from one another both geographically (far apart) and politically (in power struggles against one another) as mentioned in Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (pp. 73, 87-88). Chapters 6,7. Kindle Edition). It’s also worth noting, that any country that might be an accomplice in forging a fake genealogy could just as easily choose to disagree and undermine that new genealogy to weaken the neighboring ruler’s hold on power.

Though there are a number of similarities between the genealogies we have from Britain and Iceland there are also some differences. Cooper lays out a number of genealogies in table form and discusses some of these differences in his book, “After the Flood.” In chapter 7, Cooper gives parallel lists of ancestors offered by both the Anglo-Saxons and writers in Iceland showing that the lists have a similar sequence of names though the names are spelled in different ways and they have different gaps in the lists. For Anglo-Saxon king lists, you can find versions on pg. 239 here with claims that it was written in 855 AD and on pgs. 169-173 here which gives a manuscript age of about 900 AD for a list of Saxon kings, with pg. 173 listing “Scef” as Noah’s son (this second source was referenced by Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 79). Chapter 6. Kindle Edition). These manuscripts are dated after the Anglo-Saxon rulers had been converts to Christianity for 200-300 years (see article here). In these lists Cooper aligns “Seskef” from the Icelandic lists with “Sceaf” (see discussion of “Sceaf” in earlier show note). Cooper leaves out, however, the list of names between Seskef and Noah given in the Langfethgatal (see pgs. 56-58 here) and in Snorri’s Prose Edda (see pgs. 6-7 here) where the list doesn’t go back to Noah, but instead goes from Seskef back to the king of Troy. Cooper suggests that these differences support the case that the lists are independent, rather than simple copies of one another (see Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (pp. 87-88). Chapter 7. Kindle Edition). Cooper also includes the comment that a lack of “Noah” in some of the lists undermines the argument that these were forgeries intending to link a king back to Biblical history (see Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 87). Chapter 7. Kindle Edition) (if the goal was to link to Noah, why would you leave out Noah?) a point on which I think Cooper’s argument has merit.

The Irish family tree that links them to Magog and Japheth is given in a number of different places in the book here (see pgs. 63, 75, 82, 95, 121, 125, with pg. 95 having the list referenced in the index). Though Cooper references Keating as a source, the version of the family tree he gives in After the Flood (p. 96). Chapter 8. Kindle Edition has a slightly different structure. While I couldn’t tell which version of the family tree I should use, the legends do appear to consistently trace the family back to Magog.

In an earlier table in his book, Cooper gives names from Nennius, but they come as descendants of Japheth through Javan instead (see Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 40). Chapter 3. Kindle Edition). Nennius was an author from around 800 AD who collected various history. The above source considers his material largely fictional but perhaps with some small historical pieces. Cooper defends Nennius, noting that Nennius collected and transmitted the stories without editing them to even fix discrepancies, which can be seen as evidence of truthful transmission of error rather than covering up the error by trying to correct the differences in the legends (see Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 36). Chapter 3. Kindle Edition as well as Appendix 5 in the same book). Another author, independent of Cooper, argues similarly on pg. 6-7 here suggesting that Nennius was a collector of old material and offers some support for his honesty in that he didn’t correct errors in material he passed along. The opposite view is mentioned here which shows that Nennius’ story of a Saxon massacre of Britons bears suspicious similarity in various details to legends from Byzantine history and the founding of Carthage, while another article that more-or-less completely dismisses Nennius can be found here with the conclusion on pgs. 671-672. Those contrasting opinions stated, Nennius does describe collecting a “heap” of material, so where one part of his annals might be legend and fiction, it doesn’t preclude other parts from being a more accurate transmission of history. Cooper suggests the discrepancy between whether the Irish were descended from Magog vs Javan is due to mixing of families prior to the dispersion from Babel (see chapter 8), though to explain all the discrepancies, some muddling of the records is also likely.

For the reciting of genealogies at social and religious functions in Ireland, see pgs. 328-329 here which points out that keeping genealogies accurate was a way of maintaining reputation and status… but then goes on to argue that later on ancestors were “supplied” to give people a link to the Bible without noting that it would be difficult to make a change as everyone in society would have to change their family trees or it would upset the social structure. In another source, on pgs. 46-47 here, the author records how the Irish kept strict records of their genealogies for both “social and political” reasons and that these records were checked against one another every three years at Tara, the home of the Irish kings (see pg. 125).

For details on the Ural mountains which form the border between Europe and Asia, see here. For a map of the Ural mountains and a list of some mountain peak heights, see here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

Josephus in chapter 6 here connects Elishah to the Aeolians, one of the four main divisions of the ancient Greeks (see pg. 50 here

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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](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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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](see here), 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.

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 Cooper 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.

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. (After releasing this episode, I discovered that the Otus and Ephialtes were, evidently, trying to reach two goddesses in order to marry them (see pg. 130 here). While the motive of the giants is not the same as that of the builders of the tower of Babel in Genesis, the idea of building a tower to reach heaven remains.)

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.

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.”

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.

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.

For the dates of the dispersion from the tower of Babel, see Episode 16 for the timeline).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.   

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).

For the location of Samothrace, see the map here.

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.

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 in Oldfather, C. H., Diodorus of Sicily. Vol. 3. Harvard University Press, 1952 reprint.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For Homer and Virgil as the source of stories about Troy, see pg. 453-454 in Troy. (2020). In World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 19, p. 453-454). Chicago: World Book, Inc. For summaries of Homer’s poems see the Illiad entry in the UXL Encyclopedia of World Mythology here and pgs. 674-676 for the Odyssey in Odyssey. (2020). In World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 14, p. 674-676). Chicago: World Book, Inc. For a summary of the Aeneid, see show note 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.

For summary of the Aeneid see entry for “Aeneas” on pg. 257 here.

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.

For Aeneas being remembered as forefather of the Romans, with Romulus the seventeenth generation from Aeneas, see pgs. 143 and 145 in Cary, Earnest, The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus Book 1. Harvard University Press, 1948 reprint. 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.

For the Aeneid being written during the early days of the Roman empire, see reference on pg. 392 in Virgil. (2020). In World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 20, p. 392). Chicago: World Book, Inc., and reference on pg. 889 in Augustus. (2020). In World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 1, p. 889). Chicago: World Book, Inc. to Augustus, the first Roman emperor.

It’s reasonable to suggest that Virgil was making up the story of Aeneas, and the note on pg. 392 in Virgil. (2020). In World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 20, p. 392). Chicago: World Book, Inc. 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.

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 in Cary, Earnest, The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus Book 1. Harvard University Press, 1948 reprint.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 in Smith, R. Scott, Trzaskoma, Stephen M., Apollodorus' Library and Hyginus' Fabulae: Two Handbooks of Greek Mythology. United States, Hackett Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2007.

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.

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 who references the archeologist Flinders Petrie who also supported the value of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s work. Though even the scholars supporting this record of early British history disagree, there is plausible support for the idea that we have some version of a written copy of the history of Britain going back to pre-Christian times. That said, even 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 Cooper’s reasoning supporting the validity of the record we have of early British history, see his book “After the Flood.” For a dissenting viewpoint on Geoffrey of Monmouth, see pg. 632 of the article here.

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 Tysilio chronicle in Cooper, Wm R (Bill). The Chronicle of the Early Britons. Kindle Edition and pg. 30 of Roberts’ translation here. For a discussion of sources for early British history and their reliability, see earlier show note.

For the navigation records in the British 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 Claudius, see pgs. 8-10 here. Regarding the comparison of the Tysilio Chronicle with Caesar’s invasion that demonstrates the chronicle presents the story from a different perspective, see starting at the bottom of pg. 3 here. Petrie concludes (pg. 10) that the chronicle of early British history 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.

In Cooper’s discussion of the chronicle giving early British history, he brings out a parallel Petrie doesn’t notice and argues that the the 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 this 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 pgs. 67-73 in Tandy, David W., Neale, Walter C., Hesiod’s Works and Days. University of California Press, 1996. I also mentioned these ages of history in Episode 10.

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.

As an addendum to the above, 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.

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.

For an overview of Alexander the Great’s campaigns including victory over Darius in 330 BC and his death in 323 BC, see here. For the rapid fracture of his empire after his death, see here.

For more on Cassander, see here.

For the historical setting of Euhemerus, see the brief biography on pgs. 886-887 (book pages) here. Euhemerus was a friend of Cassander’s, the ultimate ruler of one of the parts of Alexander the Great’s fractured empire, see here.

The story of Euhemerus’ voyage and exploration of Panchaea and the contents of the golden column inside the temple are recorded on pages 1-3 here and with fewer details here. For the distance (given as 60 “stades” in the paper) in miles, see the definition of a “stade” here. For the description of a golden “stele” as a “pillar,” see the definition of “stele” here. For definitions of the Greek gods, see Uranus, Cronus, Zeus.

For Euhemerus’ voyage understood as an imaginary trip, and not a literal adventure to the island of Panchaea, see pg. 919 here. For the suggestion that Euhemerus was considered an atheist by his contemporaries, see pg. 246 here. For the suggestion that Euhemerus still listed “real” gods in his imaginary journey even while debunking the “human” ones, see footnote 13 on pg. 3 here undermining the claim that Euhemerus was an atheist. For possible motivations and beliefs Euhemerus was promoting, see here.

For the definition of Euhemerism, see here.

There is a modern argument that Genesis descended from the myths of Babylon. That claim is investigated and undermined by Bill Cooper in his book “The Authenticity of Genesis,” which makes for interesting reading. Beyond other factors that show the reliability of the Bible, one has to face the fact that ascribing Genesis’ history to Babylonian traditions doesn’t explain the other stories of the Flood and Tower of Babel from all around the world that also corroborate the history Genesis offers, as I mentioned at the end of Episode 1. For a deeper look into evidence that supports the accuracy of Genesis, see Cooper’s books “After the Flood” and “The Authenticity of Genesis” as well as articles that can be found at Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis.

Besides “The Authenticity of Genesis” I also used Bill Cooper’s “After the Flood” in tracing where people dispersed to after leaving Babel and what history remembers of those people. Cooper’s books provided both information I have referenced in this episode (see later show notes) as well as directions for further research. I have endeavored wherever possible to validate details gleaned from Cooper’s research by finding the original source, but lacking the ability to read languages besides English, I am in some cases indebted to his translations or other sources for those details I could not otherwise verify. I have cited Cooper’s books when I only had his research or conclusions to work from, or the more original sources when I could find those instead. While I do not agree with all of Cooper’s conclusions or connections, his books do make for fascinating reading which is bolstered by his extensive citations.

One scholar summarizes the idea that myths contain a grain of truth by referring to a myth as history “in disguise.” See pg. 42, here. For Cooper’s thesis to that effect, see Cooper, Bill. The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis. Introduction to part 2. Kindle Edition.

Chronologically, Genesis 10 comes after Genesis 11. Evidence for this comes from the fact that Genesis 10 describes how people dispersed and settled by “languages” even though the division of those languages doesn’t happen until Genesis 11 where people are initially described as all speaking the same language, making it clear that the events of chapter 11 occurred before the settlements of chapter 10. For more, see footnote 306 here and the same idea mentioned in the note on Genesis 11:1, here.

There are two things to be aware of regarding all of the history and mythology that comes up in this episode. First, I am not an expert here, so I may have something wrong. Second, I picked and chose examples that offered parallels to the story found in Genesis on the premise that myths might hold a grain of history in them, but this is not true of all myths. People in the past were just as capable of making up stories as we are and they didn’t need a foundation in reality to do it. There are many stories in mythology that don’t show any connection to the history found in Genesis. Those stories could refer to other ancient events that Genesis doesn’t record, events that happened to only one branch of humanity after everyone separated from one another and left Babel behind, or fiction made up so long ago that no one knows its origins. In short, for many myths, there may be no grain of truth or it may be so well buried and forgotten that we can’t figure out what it is. Furthermore, with the breadth of mythology around the world, there is inherent danger of finding false positives and thinking there are parallels between the stories in Genesis and one myth or another when the parallels weak or imaginary. Perhaps the guard against that danger is the fact that so many cultures offer similar stories, so, while we can’t draw concrete conclusions, we can take the general ideas of an original perfect world, the failure of the first humans to follow God, and a Flood, as themes that come up often enough to be worth noticing, and themes that are awfully unusual to simply arise due to coincidence.

For the suggestion that people departing Babel took with them stories of the shared history of the world, and that they passed those stories on to their kids, see note on Genesis 11:8 note here and Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 103–105). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. One scholar suggests that stories of the confusion of languages aren’t common in lore from around the world (see note on Genesis 11:8, here), but future notes will show that they do exist.

In the note on Genesis 10:1, here, it is suggested that the list of names in Genesis 10 is just a list of names the Israelites were familiar with and is arranged “as if” they were a genealogically related family tree, but then it goes on to admit that this is commonly how things were explained in the ancient world, something that goes against their suggestion that this is not a family tree and intimates that more records than just Genesis remember people as somehow related.

For the debate about whether Babylon is the site of the tower of Babel, see show notes for last episode here. I assume Babylon and Babel were the same place.

The only explicit link between Nimrod and Babel is the reference in Genesis 10:9 that the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom was “Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh.” Assuming this means Nimrod founded Babel, there’s good support for him leading out in building the tower, but it may only refer to Babel being one of the first places he ruled.

Regarding Nimrod’s lineage, it only states in Genesis 10:6-8 that Ham had a son named Cush and that Cush was the father of Nimrod. This could mean that Nimrod was either Cush’s direct son, as we’d think of it today, or a more distant descendant (grandson, great-grandson, etc.) as mentioned in the note on Genesis 10:8, here.

Some commentaries (see notes on Genesis 10:9, here and here) suggest that Nimrod started out as a literal hunter of wild animals and cleared the world of beasts that were troubling the people and that this work, perhaps, helped him gain favor. While this is speculative, it is entirely possible because, while God did promise Noah that animals would fear humans (see Genesis 9:2, He also mentioned that animals would be responsible for human blood they shed (see Genesis 9:5 suggesting that some animals would still attack humans as some do even today.   

Babylon was the home of Nimrod, a descendant of Ham. That much is clear from Genesis 10:6-8, but the land of Babylon later came to be called after one of Shem’s descendants, Arphaxad, whose children were known as “Chaldeans” according to sources here but more on Shem’s descendants later.

Stating that Nimrod was a “mighty man” and a “mighty hunter before the Lord,” would appear to make him more a hero than a villain, but that’s not his general reputation. In the minority, one source (see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7857-7883). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.) suggests that “before the Lord” implies God’s approval for Nimrod’s behavior while another reference (Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 115). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.) expresses something similar while noting the ominous connection to building Babel. Another source (see Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 10:8-12, note. Andrews University Press.) argues that while “before the Lord” often refers to Divine approval, in this case it probably references superior skill in hunting instead. Beyond that, the rest of the commentaries follow a tradition that Nimrod was a bad man and did things against God, not for him. Perhaps the most charitable of these is the note on Genesis 10:8, here which suggests the Bible gives a bad impression of Nimrod, but doesn’t support the extreme legends about him. See also the note on Genesis 10:8 here and note on Genesis 10:9, here as well as other references in the show notes below. One commentary sums it up rather nicely stating that while the words in Genesis aren’t clear about it, Nimrod was probably “a very bad man” (see note on Genesis 10:8, here).

For the connection between the word used to describe Nimrod as a “hunter” and terms for “hunter” being used elsewhere to describe tyrants, see list in note on Genesis 10:9, here and note on Genesis 10:8 here. For Nimrod’s possible connection to oppression in general see the note on Genesis 10:8, here. Historical tradition also recalls him as someone who took away liberty and rejected God’s authority (see note on Genesis 10:8, here). A similar connection to the idea of tyranny might be suggested by the phrase “a mighty one” according to Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the suggestion that the name “Nimrod” was given to him by those living at the same time rather than a birth-name, see note on Genesis 10:8, here.

For the meaning of “Nimrod” and its connection to the word “rebel” see notes on Genesis 10:8, here, here, and here as well as Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 185). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

For Nimrod as a mighty man in sin and a murderer of innocent men in Jewish tradition, see note on Genesis 10:8, here.

For the idea that Nimrod being mighty “before the Lord” can be interpreted different ways, see note on Genesis 10:9, here.

For “Before the Lord” being defiance rather than excellence, see note on Genesis 10:9, here, note on Genesis 10:8 here, and note on Genesis 10:9, here.

For the suggestion that Nimrod told people to abandon the religion of Shem and follow rules of Nimrod instead, see note on Genesis 10:8, here.

For Josephus’ statements about Nimrod, see chapter 4.2, here and other show notes for Episode 16.

Opponents of the suggestion that Nimrod was the leader of Babel during the period the tower was built point out that Nimrod being a “son of Cush” (as stated in Genesis 10:6-8) could mean that he was born not as an immediate son but a more distant descendant (according to scholar’s note on Genesis 10:8 here), making him too young to be a leader so early in post-Flood history (based on the timeline that places the events of Genesis 11:1-9 around 100 or so years after the Flood, see show note on Peleg and comments in note on Genesis 11:4, here). Against this idea, I would mention, first, that while Nimrod could have been born several generations later given the ambiguity of the “son of” statement, nothing prevents him being a direct son of Cush, and if Cush was born soon after the Flood, Nimrod could have been born within 30 years of the end of the Flood. Secondly, the reference that Nimrod was a “mighty hunter” is suggested by some scholars to refer to kingship (see other show notes for specifics), and several follow the theory that Nimrod took power by force (see other show notes for specifics). If this is true, seniority would not matter on his becoming the leader of the people headed to Shinar. For an additional claim that the group was led by Nimrod, see Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pg. 42). Master Books.

While Genesis doesn’t explicitly say that Nimrod became a king, Genesis 10:10 describes his empire as a “kingdom.” For the theory that Nimrod started the first monarchy, see notes on Genesis 10:8, here here, and here which suggests he may have succeeded due to persuasion and a potential past reputation for heroism. See also Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

The suggestion that authority was patriarchal until Nimrod instigated monarchy can be found in the notes on Genesis 10:8, here, and here. See also note on Genesis 10:10 here. This idea also fits with Nimrod’s “hunting” motif which is connected to royal warfare and invasion according to see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7857-7883). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. There’s even an Arabic legend that claims Nimrod saw the shape of a crown in the sky and, inspired by the sight, had someone make a golden crown for him to wear, starting the trend kings have followed ever since. For more, see note on Genesis 10:8 here.

References to the cities that formed Nimrod’s kingdom can be found in Genesis 10:10. Other than Babel, these cities don’t play much of a role in the story but, as archeologists have found some of the cities buried in the sands of Mesopotamia, it does give us some insight into the region Nimrod ruled over. For details on each city, see show notes below.

As the four cities listed in Genesis 10:10 are only referred to as “the beginning” of Nimrod’s kingdom, it is unclear whether he founded Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, or if they were just the cities that comprised his kingdom either by inheritance or conquest. Supporting the idea that Nimrod did not found the cities, but only ruled them as king, see notes on Genesis 10:10, here and here. The note on Genesis 10:10 here doesn’t say one way or the other while Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers takes Nimrod as the founder of the first monarchy in the region. The opposite opinion, that Nimrod wasn’t only a ruler but the founder of the cities mentioned can be found in the note on Genesis 10:8, here which equates him with Belus the legendary founder of Babylon as well as Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pg. 42). Master Books. Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association states that this can be read to mean that either Nimrod’s first kingdom included Babel or that is where he first became king. If Nimrod was the founder of Babel, that would lend significant support to the belief that he led people to the plain of Shinar and encouraged building the Tower of Babel as it would be odd for him to found a city and not be involved in directing the construction of its most famous monument. In line with the assumption (stated above) that Nimrod was a leader of the people going to Shinar, I followed the assumption that Nimrod also founded the city of Babel in telling the story in this episode since no people group would’ve come before to establish the city for him to inherit.

For Erech being what we know of as “Uruk” or “Warka” see notes on Genesis 10:10, here, here, and here as well as Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 338). Review and Herald Publishing Association and Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 10:10, note. Zondervan. See also note on Genesis 10:10, here.According to legend, this was the home of Gilgamesh mentioned various places including Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association and Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 175). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

For Accad being “Agade” in history, and the capitol of Sargon, see note on Genesis 10:10, here. See also Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 13). Review and Herald Publishing Association. See also note on Genesis 10:10, here. This city also provided the name for the language of “Accadian” as mentioned in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

The note on Genesis 10:10, here suggests that we aren’t sure where Calneh is Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers (entry: Calneh) identifies modern “Niffer” (presumably the same as “Nippur” with a different spelling) that lies about 50 miles south-south-east from Babylon. See also Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (pp. 174–175). Review and Herald Publishing Association and note on Genesis 10:10, here as well as Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

As the four cities listed in Genesis 10:10 are only referred to as “the beginning” of Nimrod’s kingdom, it is unclear whether he founded Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, or if they were just the cities that comprised his kingdom either by inheritance or conquest. Supporting the idea that Nimrod did not found the cities, but only ruled them as king, see notes on Genesis 10:10, here and here. The note on Genesis 10:10 here doesn’t say one way or the other while Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers takes Nimrod as the founder of the first monarchy in the region. The opposite opinion, that Nimrod wasn’t only a ruler but the founder of the cities mentioned can be found in the note on Genesis 10:8, here which equates him with Belus the legendary founder of Babylon as well as Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pg. 42). Master Books. Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association states that this can be read to mean that either Nimrod’s first kingdom included Babel or that is where he first became king. If Nimrod was the founder of Babel, that would lend significant support to the belief that he led people to the plain of Shinar and encouraged building the Tower of Babel, as stated by Josephus, as it would be odd for him to found a city and not be involved in directing the construction of its most famous monument.

For a brief history of clay tablet use, see the article here.

For more on cuneiform, see here.

For more on Henry Rawlinson, see here.

For the languages Darius used in writing the Behistun inscription, the source here says Susanian (the language of Elam), Old Persian, and Assyrian while the source here calls it Old Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian. It appears Assyrian and Akkadian are being used as synonyms. See also here.

For Rawlinson’s method of deciphering cuneiform, as well as references to other people who worked in parallel, see here.

An article here for further examples of the “many, many headaches” that were involved in figuring out the languages.

I should state that, as with reviving any long-forgotten language, there’s plenty of room for debate about just how well we understand what the language says. Do we understand the grammar? Do we know whether the writing was literal or meant to be taken as a euphepmism? Do we recognize idioms that would’ve been unique to their culture? This is not to say that the work of so many scholars is without value, only that it is prudent to recognize that we are far from understanding these languages the ways the original writer of the tablet would’ve understood it. One author estimates our understanding of Sumerian at about 75% (see here).

I am quite far from claiming to be a grammar expert, or perhaps even novice, in modern English. The explanation of current noun cases as three (or four if you include “dative” cases) can be found here and here. For the complexities of Sumerian and other ancient languages, and their simplification over time, see here and an updated article by the same author here where the author points out that Sumerian even today is only about 75% understood. The second article also points out that these languages are both distinct from one another but they all show up in history at about the same time.

It also appears that the Sumerians, whose language was unrelated to other languages, borrowed words over time from Semitic languages according to Bauer, Susan Wise. The History of the Ancient World: From the Earliest Accounts to the Fall of Rome (Kindle Locations 531-540). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

An article referenced earlier (see here) also noted that some of the words we still use today can be found in these early forgotten languages. Evidently “water” comes from the Hittite language, while the Akkadians gave us “gamalu,’ which became “camel” and “samassammu” which became “sesame.”

Both Sumeria and Babylonia, as empires, occupied the area that once held the Tower of Babel. As best we can tell, the Sumerians came first (see here, though recognize that the timeline isn’t Biblical) while the Babylonians followed later (see here, with same timeline caveat). Given their geographic overlap, the earlier Sumerian stories likely influenced all the stories that came later, be it Babylon or Assyrian or other mythologies, though this is my assumption.

For other Sumerian legends that bear some semblance to the story in Genesis, see pg. 359-360 (book page numbers 336-337) here.

For Adam naming the animals, see Genesis 2:19-20. In Sumerian lore, the god Ea gave Adapa wisdom to name all “concepts” and create the nouns of human speech. See pg 175 here.

For the Sumerian story of Adapa who was prevented from becoming immortal by trickery, see pgs. 180-181 here. In this case, as before, the god Ea is involved in preventing Adapa from eating the food of life in order to make Adapa die. It’s interesting to note that in the Sumerian version, the deceiver is one of the “gods.” This version puts humans in the middle being obedient to a “god” who lies to them rather than the way Genesis tells the story of an honorable God and disobedient humans. The author of the reference considers the Genesis version a derivation from the Sumerian myth. I think they are different versions of the same story, with Genesis the accurate account.

A Babylonian tablet contains the following, presumably a memory of the world of Eden, “In sin one with another in compact joins. The command was established in the garden of the god. The Asnan-tree they ate, they broke in two, Its stalk they destroyed, The sweet juice which injures the body. Great is their sin. Themselves they exalted. To Merodach their Redeemer he (the god Sar) appointed their fate.” The quote comes from Sayce, A. H. The “Higher Criticism” and the Verdict of the Monuments. (pg. 104) 1894. which itself references “The Babylonian and Oriental Record,” iv. II (1890). The suggestion is that the quote comes from part of the Babylonian story of creation, but Cooper, Bill. The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis. Chapter 7. Kindle Edition adds that the later completely reconstructed Enuma Elish does not contain that section, so this text comes from an other unknown story and adds that both Genesis and this story appear to be independent of each other rather than one copied from the other. For the A.H. Sayce quoted source, see pg. 104 here.

The British Museum has a cylinder seal that dates to over 2000 BC and shows male and female figures sitting on either side of what appears to be a tree with two fruit hanging from it. Each person looks as though they are reaching for a piece of fruit while a serpent stands behind the female figure. For an image of the seal see here or search museum number 89326. To explain this away as not a depiction of Adam and Eve is harder than seeing it as a straightforward drawing of the story of the Fall. I also referenced this artifact in Episode 7, but I think its worth repeating.

For a previous discussion about the Sumerian king list, see here (with details in the show notes). For the text of the Sumerian king list and a list of the kings that came before “the flood swept over” see here.

For multiple versions of the Flood legend in Mesopotamia, see later show notes about Gilgamesh as well as the reference to Ziusudra who was a Flood survivor in another version of the mythology of the region.

For the heavily damaged tablet referencing the Flood, see pg. 106 here and Cooper, Bill. The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis. Chapter 39. Kindle Edition. Though the age of the tablet is unknown, it does appear to reference a single God with “I” rather than many different gods which perhaps suggests it is closer to the original history as recorded by Genesis as mentioned by the article here.

You could debate whether the Epic of Gilgamesh fits with Sumerian, Babylonian, or Assyrian legends. The first tablets were found in the library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh, an Assyrian city, but the setting is Sumerian and the language is Sumerian and other older copies in Babylonian have also been found. The story also developed over time with different adventures being added. For an overview, see here.

For a summary of the Epic of Gilgamesh, see here that gives details tablet-by-tablet. For the original translation of the flood part of the legend by George Smith, see starting on pg. 263 here.

There are arguments that the Bible record is derived from the Babylonian legend. I don’t think that’s true. If Jews were taking details from Babylonian stories to put in their scriptures, with everything else in the Epic of Gilgamesh, why would they take only the story of a global Flood and change the details of even that story? If Genesis was incorporating parts of this Epic, they didn’t take much if anything besides the concept that there was a global Flood. Instead, it is likely both the story in Genesis and the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh remember the same event handed down in different ways. See also Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 103–105). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press as well as Bauer, Susan Wise. The History of the Ancient World: From the Earliest Accounts to the Fall of Rome (Kindle Locations 14601-14603). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

There are a lot of theories about who “Nimrod” might be in the standard history books. As referenced earlier, the name “Nimrod” appears to be a title for “rebel,” more than a name, so we have to work off of the history given in Genesis — the events and geography — to narrow down the options. Among the details Genesis 10:8-10 gives are that Nimrod was a grandson of Ham (possibly more if ancestral meaning of “begat” is intended), that he initially ruled four cities including Babel, that he was later connected with the cities of Assyria including Nineveh, and that he was a “mighty hunter,” who was seemingly against God (assuming “before the Lord” means “in the face of God” and “Nimrod” means “rebel” as suggested in earlier notes). With those details on one side, scholars have suggested both Gilgamesh as one option. Against Gilgamesh as Nimrod (or, alternately, against Nimrod as the founder of Babel since Genesis only says that Babel was part of his original empire, not that he founded it) is the fact that the Epic of Gilgamesh doesn’t reference a tower or the confusion of languages in any way (while including a great many non-biblical details). It’s possible the writer was simply editing out that part of the story, but it lends support to the idea that either Nimrod came after the tower-building and language confusion or that Gilgamesh and Nimrod aren’t the same person. That said, if Nimrod came earlier than Gilgamesh, given the lifespans of Noah and his sons, that doesn’t preclude Gilgamesh still being able to visit a Ham or a Noah to learn about the Flood as both Noah and Shem (see Genesis 9:28 and Genesis 11:11 — and likely Ham and Japheth as well — lived for hundreds of years after the Flood. Beyond Gilgamesh, another option is Marduk, the Babylonian chief god, who is also shown as a hunter and whose name might be translatable into Hebrew as “Nimrod” (see here) and others besides. Beyond these, people suggest Gilgamesh’s earlier predecessor Lugalbanda (see pgs. 304 and 312 here as well as Sargon of Akkad (see articles here and here as well as Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 10:8, note. Zondervan), but there were other kings in the record prior to Sargon and Sargon took over cities that other people founded, which points toward a pre-Babel dispersion of people which doesn’t fit with the story in Genesis and makes it tricky to explain how those pre-dispersion people got their different languages. As it stands, overall there’s not a good historical connection, between the Nimrod of Genesis and a well-known historical figure. It could be that Nimrod came too early in history to be well recorded, or that he is well recorded but only in mythology (as in Marduk) so we don’t have a clear idea of who he was. For a list of alternative theories about who Nimrod might be in the historical record, and the conclusion that no option is a close match for the Nimrod of the Bible, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7857-7883). Zondervan. Kindle Edition as well as Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 174). Pacific Press Publishing Association who notes that the historical identity of Nimrod is debated. The note on Genesis 10:8 here dismisses the idea that either Orion or Gilgamesh refer to Nimrod. For revision of the former translation “Izdubar” now accepted to be “Gilgamesh” see here.

Cooper makes the observation that it is odd how quickly paganism sprung up after the Flood. It appears in the very early history of cultures such as the Sumerians. He suggests that there was no idolatry before the Flood or Genesis 6 would mention it, but I’m not convinced. Genesis 6:5 is all-encompassing with respect to the evil things people did before the Flood without going into specific crimes. From my perspective, perhaps the growth of paganism and polytheism is somewhat explained by the shortened lives of people after the Flood (as given by the ages at death recorded in Genesis) compared to those who lived for nearly a thousand years prior to it. Such short-lived people might’ve deified their ancestors remembering them as gods rather than as people like themselves, which also explains many of the the bad behaviors of such ‘gods,’ but this is my speculation (though I do not think it is original to me). For more, see Cooper, Bill. The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis. Chapter 7. Kindle Edition.

For the reference to the rainbow in Sumerian literature, see note on Genesis 9:17, here.

Genesis refers to “Shinar” while people who lived in the area called the region “Sumer” according to Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7989-7996). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. There’s dispute, however, over whether the names are etymologically related or not. See Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association and Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 175). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

One potential example of people remembering a time when the whole world spoke one language is found in the Sumerian story “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta.” Specifically, there is a line that is translated “To Enlil in one tongue spoke,” referring to the Sumerian god Enlil (see pg. 109 here, including the comment in the right column filling in the word “spoke” that was missing from the earlier translation). Later, on pg. 111 of the same document, the story adds a comment about how the gods changed men’s speech from what had before been a single language. This conclusion, however, of a past happy time is contested by later scholars here and here who translate the passage as referring to a future happy state when everyone will speak in to Enlil in one language and when Enki (another god) will have changed all the languages into the same language.

In inscribed cylinders found at the ruins of the tower of Borsippa, about 12 miles from Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, who lived about 600 BC, writes of restoring an old tower that once stood 60 feet tall but had never been completed. It was very old and broken down and crumbled and lay in ruins. In his day, 600 BC, the tower was very old. For a translation, see pg. 41 here. Page 35 in the source refers the the discovery occurring at “Birs-Nimrud” which is the same as Borsippa according to note here. For the location of Borsippa relative to Babylon, see under “Nebo” in Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 782). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For Nimrod expanding his kingdom into Assyria, see Genesis 10:11 and note on Genesis 10:11, here.

There is debate about whether Nimrod went and founded Nineveh or whether Assur did it (For conflicting opinions, see notes on Genesis 10:11 note here and here). Given the context, I’d guess that the territory may have been named after Assur, but he or his descendants were displaced and / or conquered when Nimrod invaded so that the country retained the name “Assyria” but the cities were founded and named by Nimrod. A version of this idea is put forward in the note on Genesis 10:11, here, here, and here 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 straight-line distance between Babylon and Nineveh, measure between Babylon and Nineveh here.

A lot could be said about Nineveh that doesn’t fit into this episode. The city comes up later in the Bible as the target of Jonah’s mission (Jonah 1:1) and as the capitol of the Assyrian empire (see here, but discussions of those topics will have to wait until later. As for the other cities, Nimrod’s city of Rehoboth-Ir might be a title for the city market according to the note on Genesis 10:11 here or “the streets of the city” according to note on Genesis 10:11, here but both sources admit the actual site of the city is unknown. The note on Genesis 10:12, here as well as Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 175). Pacific Press Publishing Association suggests it may possibly refer to suburbs among other options (see also Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.). For Calah, there’s the suggestion in the note on Genesis 10:11 in Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 108–123). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press that “Calah” is modern “Nimrud,” a name that bears a suspicious similarity to “Nimrod,” an idea echoed in the note on Genesis 10:11, here and here though it admits that there isn’t consensus on that identification (see also Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 175). Pacific Press Publishing Association.). For Resen, even less is known other than the fact that it is between Calah and Rehoboth-Ir. Altogether there is disagreement about the location of all the cities in this list of four besides Nineveh as stated by Genesis 10:12.

For Nineveh as the capitol of the Assyrian empire, see here.

For the Assyrians kings Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal ruling over Babylon in addition to Assyria, see comment in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1977). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 3, p. 305). Review and Herald Publishing Association. This is interesting as 2 Chronicles 33:11 says that the king of “Assyria” took Manasseh, the wicked king of Judah, to *Babylon.” Normally one would expect an Assyrian king to take a captive back to Assyria, but during the time of Manasseh’s reign, the Assyrian emperors were also in control of Babylon. For how the reigns of Manasseh and Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal overlap, see Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pp. 279-280, 286). Master Books.

One of the kings who ruled over Babylon in addition to Assyria was Ashurbanipal. A significant portion of what we know about Babylonian history comes from what was found at Ashurbanipal’s library in Nineveh, as mentioned here. While other tablets have been found, the Flood legend translated by George Smith comes from this library in Nineveh. In addition, according to the article cited above, there were plans underway as recently as 2014 to seek for more artifacts from the library that might be as yet undiscovered.

For where Canaan settled, see note on Genesis 10:6 here.

Going forward, while I reviewed several sources for where Noah’s descendants went after Babel, one of the more recent and well-sourced is Bill Cooper’s book “After the Flood” which breaks down each descendant in the appendices to the book and references where they are mentioned in ancient records.

In Genesis, this list of people is not always the name of the first son himself, but sometimes the people group that eventually descended from that son. For instance in Genesis 10:15-16 it references “Sidon” and “Heth” who would’ve been people, but goes on to talk about the “Jebusite” and “Amorite” which would refer to a tribe. For this principal and its application to the later children of Mizraim, see note on Genesis 10:1, here.

Several commentaries suggest that “Heth” refers to the Hittites. See notes on Genesis 10:15 here, here, here, here, and here. Some more recent scholarship doubts the connection between “Heth” and the “Hitties” and suggests that the Hittites came from southeast Europe and might not be related to the Hittites of Canaan or that the two groups are at least not necessarily the same (see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 10:15, note. Zondervan, Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 10:15-19, note. Andrews University Press). Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.) suggests that the Hittite empire was a later development and that children of the “Heth” mentioned in Genesis were the precursors to that empire. Of the options, I’m inclined to follow the original opinion that Heth and the Hittites are directly linked. For the remnants of the Hittite capitol of Hattushah, a world heritage site, see here.

For the Amorites living in the hill country and a description of them as shown on Egyptian drawings, see Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers and note on Genesis 10:15-18, here. They weren’t an insignificant tribe, either. Overtime they grew into a power strong enough to conquer Babylon. Hammurabi, an Amorite, was the sixth ruler of that dynasty (see here).

For what we know about the Jebusites, see notes on Genesis 10:16 here, here, here, and For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For Jebus and Jerusalem being the same place, see 1 Chronicles 11:4-5.

For details on the Hamathites, see notes on Genesis 10:18 here, here, here. See also Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the link between the Girgashites and the Phoenicians, see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 422). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the possibilty that the Hivites are really the Horites, see For more, see 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. 502–503). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For their connection with the four cities of the Gibeonites that tricked Joshua during the conquest of Canaan later on, see note on Genesis 10:17 here.

For more on the Arkites, see notes on Genesis 10:17 here, here, here. For the suggested connection between Irqata and the Arkites, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 178). Pacific Press Publishing Association and For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.For the location of the city at the mouth of a river, see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 75). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For more details about the Sinites, see notes on Genesis 10:17 here, here, and here. The proximity to Tel Arka assumes that that was the home of the Arkites. Another sources suggest that the location is unknown. See Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 178). Pacific Press Publishing Association and For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

See notes on Genesis 10:18 here and here as well as Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 178). Pacific Press Publishing Association and For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

See notes on Genesis 10:18 here, here and here. See also Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 178). Pacific Press Publishing Association and Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For more on Sidon and its connection to Canaan and the Phoenicians, see notes on Genesis 10:15 here, here, here, and note on Genesis 10:15-18 here. Later on in history, the city of Tyre became more important than Sidon, and one scholar notes that the lack of a reference to “Tyre,” in Genesis 10 supports the understanding that the record is older than the point in time when Tyre gained prominence. For more see footnote 393 in Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 177). 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 and Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (pp. 1036–1038). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For locating Sidon between Tyre and Beirut, see map here.

For Sidon as an ancient city and one of the home of the Phoenicians, see here and here. For the Phoenicians being known for their sailing abilities, see here.

For the history of Tyrian purple, see here and here. For “Phoenician” coming from the Greek for “red-purple” see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 176). Review and Herald Publishing Association. See also Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 10:6, note. Zondervan which suggests that “Canaan” might also mean something like “land of purple.” It’s also possible that someone’s name “Canaan” came to also refer to the color of purple after his descendants became the producers and exporters of the dye, but that’s my speculation.

For the Phoenicians founding Carthage, see here. For the meaning of “Carthage” see here. For Carthage being the center of an empire, see here where it is described as “controlling” an empire.

For the Carthaginians referring to themselves as “Canaanites” on their coins, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the Canaanite memory of an ancient migration from near the Persian Gulf, see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 176). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the background of Philo of Byblos, see here and the introductory paragraphs on pg. 213 here.

For a summary of Philo of Byblos’ writings about Phoenicia, see here. In that article, the author mentions that Philo thought of “gods” as humans who’d been deified, giving examples on pgs. 24 and 26. In addition, the author suggests that while the “creation” (cosmogony) part of Philo’s work might’ve been influenced by Greek culture, the section that deals with generations of people who discovered things (technogony) appears to be a genuine recollection of Phoenician legends (see pg. 50). For parallels that are mentioned by the author that come out of the technogony section, see first pg. 23 of the article, where people discovered the use of food on trees aligning with Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit Genesis 3 (though in Philo it is the second generation of people who discovered it rather than the first as it is in Genesis). Next, Philo tells of people in the third generation praying to the sun because of droughts (pg. 23) which could be linked to Genesis 4:26 where Enosh, a member of the third generation, is listed as living when “men began to call on the name of the Lord” (in this case, both incidents occurring to members of the 3rd generation). There’s also the mention of giants being born and promiscuous behavior (pg. 24 and Genesis 6:4 as well as the story of a fight between two brothers, one who built shelters from plants and the other who made clothes from animals skins (see pg. 24 vs Genesis 4:1-15) which fits with Cain the gardener who tried to offer a sacrifice of plants fighting Abel the shepherd who offered a sacrifice of animals. Philo goes on to mention a list of discoveries and inventions from the children of the brother who built shelters from plants, including hunting and fishing and metal working, which may align with Jabal and Tubal-Cain who are mentioned as keeping livestock and working with iron and bronze (see pg. 24 and Genesis 4:20-22. These parallels between Philo and Genesis are far from perfect as, for example, in the fight between the brothers, neither is killed and the brother who would be linked to Abel is later described as the first person to turn a tree into a boat, which has no parallel in the story in Genesis. For the author’s list of parallels between Philo and the Old Testament, see pg. 50.

For a discussion of the authenticity of Philo’s record, see pgs. 1-7 in Baumgarten, Albert I., The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos. E. J. Brill, 1981 which goes over the history of belief and doubt concerning Philo’s work including reference to the influence of the Greek and Roman culture that Philo lived in. See also discussion starting on pg. 19 here. Both of the above authors give some reference to the discovery of tablets at Ugarit in the 1930s improving the opinion of Philo’s authenticity, though to varying degrees. As far as I can tell, though, the details found on the tablets at Ugarit do not overlap significantly with the mythology Philo records with one author stating that Philo offers less specificity (see comments at the end of pg. 55 and start of pg 56 here). Altogether, we don’t have a lot of detail about Canaanite legends. And, even if we did, we’d have to remember that Canaan was a collection of city-states more than an empire, so the religion probably varied from place to place (see pgs. 55 - 56 and article here). Furthermore, with the strip of land along the Mediterranean coast functioning as a crossroads between places like Egypt and Babylon and including trade with Greek people to the north, it would be easy for Canaanite religion to become a mixture of all the surrounding influences.

With all these parallels, and the fact that Phoenicia is fairly close to the Jewish homeland, there is speculation about whether the Jewish Scriptures influenced Philo. The author addresses this question on pg. 60 where he suggests that if Philo did borrow from Jewish tradition, then he scrambled it significantly. On the other hand, if Philo was accurately recording and passing along older legends, there’s no way to know whether those legends were influenced by Israelites such as Moses or David or Solomon prior to Philo’s use of them, though, if so, again, the facts and details were well scrambled in the process. For more, see pg.60 here.

In addition to dismissing Jewish influence on Philo, it's worth noting that while Philo may have been influenced by Greek culture, his history of the pantheon of gods disagrees with Hesiod, the recorder of the Greek pantheon from around 700 BC (see here), suggesting that Philo wasn’t simply copying Hesiod’s material. For more, see pg. 56, footnote 2, as well as pg. 44 here.

For some of the mythology of Canaan, see here for a summary (though I don’t ascribe to the ideas the the author offers of the Bible’s Old Testament incorporating Canaanite ideas into its text). For definition of Yamm, the Canaanite god, see here.

The parallel between the Canaanite mythology of Baal and Yamm and the Babylonian story of Marduk and Tiamat is my assumption. Canaan and Babylon weren’t very far apart. For an overview of the Babylonian story, see here.

The name “Cush” means “Black” according to Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.

For Cush settling near modern Ethiopia, see notes on Genesis 10:6, here, here, as well as Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers, Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 173). Pacific Press Publishing Association, and Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association. Curiously, a couple of sources referred to Cush as landing in the Ethiopia of Asia, not the Ethiopia of Africa (see notes on Genesis 10:6, here and here, but as other links (see above) state that Cush was south of Egypt, and as I could find no reference to there ever was an Ethiopia in the Arabian peninsula, I concluded that Cush went into Africa while his children populated the Arabian peninsula, but whether he went to Africa coming from the north, or crossed over the Red Sea to get there (as suggested in note on Genesis 10:6, here) there’s no way to say.    For people still calling Ethiopians Cushites in Josephus’ day, see sentence containing, “Chus; for the Ethiopians,” here.

For Cush’s children settling in Arabia, see note on Genesis 10:7, here. In the show notes following, I outline where each tribe likely settled, but there’s much disagreement over the specifics.

Broadly speaking, Cush’s son Seba’s descendants are thought to be a tribe in the Arabian peninsula. The notes on Genesis 10:7 here and here put them on the eastern shore of the Red Sea near Massowah in Africa.

For the location of the descendants of Havilah, Cush’s son, in the Arabian peninsula, see note on Genesis 10:7, here and comment placing them on the western part of the peninsula in Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 174). Pacific Press Publishing Association, though the note on Genesis 10:7, here wants to put them on the coast of Africa while noting that they are an Arabian tribe and Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 184). Kindle Edition has them on the east coast of the peninsula by the Persian Gulf.

For the suggestion that Sabtah was part of the “Ethiopians of Arabia” see note on Genesis 10:7 here and Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 174). Pacific Press Publishing Association who mentions that their name might show up in “Shabwa(t)” the capitol of the kingdom of Hadraumat.

For more on Ramah (or Raamah), that can also be pronounced “Rhegma,” see notes on Genesis 10:7 here, here, here, and here which locates it in Oman. For the suggestion that “Ragmatum” might be a memory of “Ramah” in the name of the ancient capitol city of Yemen, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 174). Pacific Press Publishing Association. For Raamah, Dedan, and Sheba dividing up the end of the Arabian peninsula, see note on Genesis 10:7 here. See also For more, see 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. 921). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 174). Pacific Press Publishing Association suggests that Sabtecah is probably in Arabia, while Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 185). Kindle Edition. suggests southern Arabia, modern Yemen.

Sheba and Dedan are probably in southwest Arabia according to Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 174). Pacific Press Publishing Association. Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association puts them in Yemen though Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 185). Kindle Edition has Dedan further north. Genesis 25:3 mentions another two boys named Sheba and Dedan who were born later, however and Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association suggests that the original Sheba and Dedan were in south Arabia while the latter set lived further north.

For the Arabian desert as the second largest desert on Earth, behind only the Sahara, see here. For daily high temperatures, see here.

For Saudi Arabia covering 80% of the Arabian peninsula, see here. For the note that it is the largest country in the world without a river, see geography note here.

For a sandstorm in Arabia from 2011, see the article here.

For the remains of a river that used to flow from the west to the east of the Arabian peninsula, see the article here.

For details on the Marib dam, see pg. 51 here and pg. 9 here for the dimensions of the dam, pg. 190, here for the amount of land the reservoir irrigated. See pg. 534 here for a diagram of the dam. For the length of the dam compared to the Hoover dam, see pg. 57 here which claims “twice as long” though the statistics from here suggest more like 1.5 times as long. The Hoover dam is, however, around 15 times taller than the Marib dam (see above links for the different heights). The Marib dam failed around the mid-500s AD according to pg. 10 in this source.

The Queen of Sheba probably came from southern Arabia near the modern city of Marib rather than from Ethiopia, bringing many spices with her, as mentioned in 1 Kings 10:10. For more, see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 1015). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For myrrh and frankincense production in souther Arabia, and Marib’s profits from the trade, see here.

Southern Arabia was known as “Arabia Felix” or “Happy Arabia” during the Roman era as compared with “Arabia deserta” to the north according to the note on pg. 1 here. See also here.

Moses doesn’t say much about Put, the fourth of Ham’s sons. Most scholars think Put settled further west in north Africa, beyond Egypt. There are also mentions of a river in the area named either “Fut” or “Phutes” and that part of the country was known as “Futa.” For “Put” being Libya, see notes on Genesis 10:6 here, here, here, here, and here that mentions the connection comes from Josephus (see sentence containing, “Phut also was the founder,” here who adds that the name Libya came after the region was later renamed for one of Egypt (Mizraim’s) descendants. Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 189). Kindle Edition doesn’t mention Libya, but does place “Put” along the north African coast and mentions that the name frequently shows up in Egyptian records. Cooper also suggests (on pgs. 186-187) that the “Ludim” mentioned in Genesis are the son of Mizraim who later gave their name to Libya, which accords well with Josephus comment. For other references, see also Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 173). Pacific Press Publishing Association. While Libya is commonly identified as “Put”, there is also the suggestion that “Put” might be south of Egypt in Somalia. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association, Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 10:6, note. Zondervan, and Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 918). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the original Hebrew saying a form of “Mizraim” instead of “Egypt” see note on Genesis 10:6 here. For the Jews still using a form of the word “Mizraim” to refer to Egypt in Josephus’ day, see sentence containing, “The memory also of the Mesraites,” here.

For the Assyrians referring to “Egypt” as “Musur,” similar to “Mizraim,” see note on Genesis 10:6, here.

For the Canaanite name for Egypt in the 1300s BC as “Misri” see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 305). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and other ancient cultures calling Egypt “Mizraim” or something similar while the Egyptians referred to their land as the “black land” see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the old Egyptian name for “Egypt” being “Kemi” as a reference to “Ham,” Mizraim’s father, see note on Genesis 10:6, here.

The Turks called Egypt “Mitzir” (see note on Genesis 10:6, here) and the Arabs called it “Muzr” or “Mizr” (see Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.), but considering that both cultures overlapped with the Jews in the Middle East it is hard to say whether they were influenced by the Jewish name “Mizraim” found in the Bible or independently remember Egypt as something similar to “Mizraim.” For the Egyptians in modern times referring to their country by the name “Misr,” and “Egypt” coming from the name for Memphis, see the article here as well as Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 305). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

The “-aim” ending of “Mizraim” suggests that it is referring to two of something, we don’t know why, but there is a theory that it refers to both upper and lower Egypt. See notes on Genesis 10:6, here and here. Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers suggests it is refers to two “Matzors” referring to the idea of a fortified mound and references upper and lower Egypt.

For the Anamim, there are various suggestions including that the lived in the furthest south oasis of Egypt (see note on Genesis 10:13, here), or west of Egypt in north Africa (see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 10:13, note. Zondervan.), or possibly in Cyrene (Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 176). Pacific Press Publishing Association and Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 44). Review and Herald Publishing Association), though they must refer to the region as Cyrene itself was a colony from Greece (see here.

For placing the Ludim in the Nile area, see notes on Genesis 10:13, here. They’re also mentioned as being used as mercenaries by Egypt according to Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 186). Kindle Edition suggests that this tribe is where we get the name Libya.

The Lehabim are thought to be people living to the west or Egypt (see note on Genesis 10:13 here and note on Genesis 10:13, here) or maybe a desert tribe (see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 10:13, note. Zondervan.). See also Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 176). Pacific Press Publishing Association and Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the location of the Naphtuhim, see note on Genesis 10:13 here which places them near Pelusium on Lake Sirbonis or further south toward Sudan, an identification Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers suggests. The note on Genesis 10:13, here suggests the Nile delta (or some unknown oasis) while Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 176). Pacific Press Publishing Association agrees with the Nile delta location. While not stating the delta itself, Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 10:13, note. Zondervan does place them in lower Egypt. One scholar (see note on Genesis 10:13, here) suggests that these were the “true” Egyptians and links them to the “people of ptah,” an Egyptian god (see here as well as here). The most concrete and plausible link conclusion is offered by Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 778). Review and Herald Publishing Association who notes that Egyptians called the people in the Nile delta “Na-patuh” which could by related to “Naphtuhim.”

The Pathrusim are consistently linked to upper (southern) Egypt. See notes on Genesis 10:14 here, here, here, here, and here as well as Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 10:14, note. Zondervan. Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 176). Pacific Press Publishing Association notes that the Assyrians refer to them as the “Paturesi.” Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association points out that Ezekiel 29:14 calls “Pathros” the original homeland of the Egyptians, which agrees with their own legend regarding the first king, Menes, who united Egypt into one nation, but came from the southern part of the region.

For details on Josephus’ description of the Ethiopic war, see chapter 6 for reference to the descendants of Mizraim that were wiped out, chapter 10 for a description of the story of Moses’ actions in the Ethiopic war, and footnote 17 here. It’s unclear how much of the extra-Biblical stories about Moses are rooted in reality versus legend. Moses was trained as an Egyptian prince, and it’s plausible or likely that he led Egyptian troops. As for his tactics in the war, it is hard to know if any of it is more than legend, but if there was a war that destroyed or decimated so many tribes, it would explain why so many of Mizraim’s descendants don’t show up significantly in the historical record, as suggested by Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 187). Kindle Edition.

For the Kasluhim, it appears they lived in the northern part of Egypt (see notes on Genesis 10:14 here, and here).

For the Casluhim being considered the forbears of the Caphtorim and the Philstim (Philistines) see Genesis 10:14. For the argument that the Caphtorim are descended from Mizraim and only sibling to the Kasluhim, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 277). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

There’s a good bit of debate over the back story of the Philistines. We know from Genesis 10:13-14 that the Philistines were descendants of Mizraim, who founded Egypt. From Judges 3:31, Judges 13:1, and 1 Samuel 4 that the Philistines lived in large numbers in Canaan, where the Israelites had settled. What happened in between those events is debated. There is a group of scholars who place the Philistines as part of the “Sea Peoples” who invaded along the Mediterranean coast around the 1300’s BC (see note on Genesis 10:14, here as well as Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 878). Review and Herald Publishing Association). Part of the argument for this is Amos 9:7 and Jeremiah 47:4 that connects the Philistines to “Caphtor” which scholars suggest is the island of Crete (see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 115). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 189). Review and Herald Publishing Association., Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 177). Pacific Press Publishing Association., and note on Genesis 10:14, here), but this depends on whether “Caphtor” actually refers to “Crete.” In support of this argument, they have found many Aegean artifacts in excavations of Philistine cities (see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 176). Pacific Press Publishing Association). On the other hand, Genesis 21:32 and Genesis 26:1 suggest the Philistines were already in Canaan during the days of Abraham and Isaac, placing them there earlier than the Sea Peoples’ invasion of several hundred years later. One suggestion is that the Philistines referenced in the days of Abraham and Isaac were only a small group, later bolstered by settlements after the Sea Peoples’ invasion (see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 879). Review and Herald Publishing Association and Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 153). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press) though the above references in Genesis as well as Exodus 13:17-18 make it appear that the Philistines were present in some numbers. Cooper argues confidently that the connection between “Caphtor” and “Crete” is a mistake and references several reasons that suggest “Caphtor” should be associated with a settlement on the mainland of North Africa (see Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 187-189). Kindle Edition). Though Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association states that the reference to “Keftiu” (also noted by Cooper) as a name for “Caphtor” connects them as the first settlers of Crete in Egyptian inscriptions. In this debate, Cooper’s main important detail is to realize that any identification of the Philistines as coming from Crete with the “Sea Peoples” as a way of dismissing the accuracy of references to the Philistines in the time of Abraham and Isaac isn’t well founded. For a list of places scholars have identified as the home of the Caphtorim, see See notes on Genesis 10:14, here, here, here. note on Genesis 10:13, here with the last suggesting that perhaps the Caphtorim colonized Crete, noting that nothing is said of that island regarding Japheth’s children.

For the word “Philistine” possibly coming from an Ethiopian root word meaning “emigrate” see note on Genesis 10:14, here. For the connection between “Philistine” and “Palestine” see comment on Genesis 10:13 here.

For the Rosetta stone’s history and its use in deciphering hieroglyphics, see here.

For the background on the combination of phonograms, logograms, and determinatives in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, see here. The example of combining concrete nouns “ball” and “ants” to make “balance” is my own invention. In the above source, I assume the example of “bee” and “leaf” being combined to make “belief” is a similar invention

For mention of the earliest hieroglyphics appearing fully formed, see pg. 55 here. It is also suggested in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 140–141). Review and Herald Publishing Association that Egyptian hieroglyphics appear with out any prototypes script in their earliest examples, suggesting that hieroglyphics began that way and didn’t have stages of development that you would expect of a new language. Depending on your perspective, this doesn’t confirm or deny the story of the tower of Babel. On the one hand, you could argue that a new language wouldn’t have a ready-made writing script so Egyptian couldn’t be a new language fresh from Babel. On the other hand, a language unrelated to the languages of Mesopotamia, but spoken by a cadre of intelligent people, would quickly develop its own writing system for recording information. If Egyptian was related to Sumerian, you’d expect their writing styles to be related too.

To be clear, in this list of technologies the ancient Egyptians figured out, I can’t say how many of them appeared early in Egyptian history or how they developed over time. Some of these technologies may have come early, others late, and all of them likely changed over time. Furthermore, any timeline is depend on Egyptian chronology, which is fairly muddled as described here.

For the Egyptian counterweight crane used for transferring water, see here.

For the use of “nilometers” to measure the water level in the Nile, see here.

For Egyptian possession of razor blades in ancient history, see here.

For Egyptian hole drilling technology, see reference on pgs. 1-3 here to the age of Egyptian core drilling as well as articles here and here. Neither comments on the methods the Egyptians must have used to make the tubular drills, only the abrasive used to do the drilling.

For the list of ancient wonders of the world, see here.

For the dimensions and number of blocks used in the great pyramid at Giza, see here.

For a primer on ziggurats and a progression from step pyramids to the more famous smooth-sided pyramids in Egyptian history, see here. This is not to say that ziggurats and pyramids are related, only that the stepped shape of the early pyramids is reminiscent of the stepped sides of ziggurats which would make sense if the Tower of Babel was a ziggurat and, as Genesis describes, the settlers of Egypt came there from Mesopotamia after leaving that unfinished tower behind.

As a further comment on the link between early Egyptian culture and Mesopotamia, Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 140). Review and Herald Publishing Association comments that Egyptian buildings were first built of brick and had similar architecture as those in Mesopotamia as well as a similar patterns and designs on objects.

I should mention here that Egyptian mythology has a broad span in terms of material, versions, and timeline of development. Some of the legends mentioned in this episode probably occurred at different points in history, but it is difficult to know whether they are young or old, and even so, connections between these stories and “real” history are speculative at best. For examples of different Egyptian mythology, including examples of it changing over time in Ptah going from craftsman-god to creator-god, see here.

For an overview of various Egyptian mythologies here. As an example of the fragmented nature of their mythology, note that Ra, Atum, and Ptah (and potentially others) were all considered the main god of creation (see here, here, and here).   

For the creation of the world by Ra rising from the waters that covered the world at the beginning of time, see pg. 207 here. For a description of the Shabaka stone and the story of Ptah creating by using words, see pgs. 81, 83-85 here.

For the story of an Egyptian god threatening to destroy the world and return it to a watery flooded condition, see Genesis 8 here as well as pg. 104 here which gives pieces of the story with another version of the full translation found on pg. 175 in Faulkner, Raymond O., The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. University of Texas Press, 1972.

For the story of Ra and the rebellion against his rule, see pg. 2 here. For the reference to the title of the “heavenly cow” meaning “great flood” see here.

For a definition of the Egyptian god Thoth, see here. For Ra leaving Thoth as one of the gods in charge of the Earth after he left, see here. For Thoth setting up columns with writing on them after a Flood, see here.

For the reference to Plato’s record of Egyptians telling Solon of several extreme floods, see here.

For examples of various groupings of gods in Egyptian mythology, see here. Of these, the Ogdoad mentioned below stands out due to its potential similarities with the four pairs of humans who survived the Flood. Whether the other groupings of gods have any significance, I couldn’t say.

For a summary of the Ogdoad group of Egyptian gods made up of four pairs of male and female deities, see here.

For parallels between the Ogdoad deities and Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, see the series of articles here, here, here, and here.

For Hectaeus of Abdera’s lifetime, see here which puts him between 300 - 400 BC. The reference here puts him at around 290 BC. This would appear to put him contemporary with Euhemerus, but the reference pg. 151 of the article here says Hectaeus was first to suggested that some of the gods were just deified kings of the past. In this case, as in Euhemerus, Hectaeus thought that there were “real” gods who were distinct from legendary kings who’d were simply elevated to the status of gods by people (see pg. 10 of same article here. For Hectaeus of Abdera’s suggestion that the Egyptian gods were forces of nature or deified kings from the past, see pgs. 149-151, here. In addition, on pg. 160 here the author suggests that Hectaeus argued that those deified humans had become immortal by their good actions on mankind’s behalf, making it unclear whether the concept of “deification” is Hectaeus arguing that kings were remembered as gods or that they had become gods in actuality.

There are longer and shorter Babylonian and Egyptian timelines, I’m referring only to those that are in surprising agreement with what is mentioned in Genesis. This is cherry-picking, but in my opinion, it is interesting that these timelines offer specific numbers, suggesting, perhaps, that they are based more on reality than legend. If you are making something up, you might not be keen to give specific dates or time periods because that could be shown to be false. If you are telling the truth, there’s no danger in giving specifics.

For the Genesis date of the start of the Flood see Ussher, James (2006-11-01). The Annals of the World (Kindle Locations 502-503). Master Books. Kindle Edition who gives 2349 BC. Alternatively, Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pgs. 278) Master Books gives 2348 BC.

For the timing of the events at the tower of Babel, see show notes for Episode 16.

For the date of the capture of Babylon by Alexander the Great, see here. For Aristotle as one of Alexander the Great’s tutors before he became king, see here. For Alexander sending the astronomical records back to Aristotle, and the total of 1903 years between the founding of Babylon and its capture by Alexander, see references in Ussher, James (2006-11-01). The Annals of the World (Kindle Locations 581-583). Master Books. Kindle Edition.   

For the timeline written in the middle ages by Constantine Manasses that references 1663 years between the founding of Egypt and when it was conquered by the Persians, see Ussher, James (2006-11-01). The Annals of the World (Kindle Location 594). Master Books. Kindle Edition. For 525 BC as the date when Cambyses, the Persian king, conquered Egypt, see here.

For the idea that some of the changes in the history people remember was due to accidental mistakes in hand-offs between generations, see comments in Models,    Calling Long Distance, and in the show notes of Episode 10.

For the pharaohs being thought of as incarnations of the god Horus, and therefore a god themselves, see here. Elsewhere the pharaohs are defined as a “divine intermediary” between people and the gods, still suggesting a god-like status.

For the comment that artisans in Egypt depicted things as they were told to show them, rather than as they were, see pg. 82 here or 1 hr 50 minutes into the audiobook.

I talked a lot in the episode about Ham’s kids, but in terms of legends about Ham himself, one commentary (see note on Genesis 9:22, here), references Berosus (see here as saying that Ham was remembered in history as “Zoroast” (presumably Zoroaster). Zoroaster is a confusing character. There’s some suggestion that he lived around 600 BC (see here), much too late to be equated with Ham, but that appears to based on some unreliable Greek history (see here) desiring to describe Pythagoras as a student of Zoroaster. The above article also outlines a number of other spurious attempts to connect Zoroaster to historical figures, but also mentions the belief in Plato’s day (~400BC that Zoroaster lived several thousand years earlier. From all of this we can derive two things. First, if Zoroaster did live in the distant past relative to Plato (though not several thousand years) that could remember a time when Ham lived, but, in digging through the data, legends about Zoroaster appear based on very little and come across speculative and unreliable. As such, any legendary connection between Zoroaster and Ham offers little if any value.

For an overview of where Ham’s children settled after Babel, see note on Genesis 10:20 here as well as Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 453). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

Bill Cooper, in Cooper, Bill. The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis. Chapter 18. Kindle Edition, notes that where parallels exist between the history in Genesis (creation, Cain and Abel, the Flood, and others) and the stories told by indigenous people, there is room to claim that that those parallels are due to natives reciting versions of stories that they learned from Christian missionaries. On the other hand, presumably, where there are no parallels, the local stories are likely considered genuine and not due to the influence of missionaries. This puts a researcher seeking parallels between the history in the Bible and the stories people remember in their oral traditions in a no-win situation. It is also a bit nonsensical, as Cooper points out. It would be one thing if the local stories included examples recalling Daniel, Hezekiah, Jesus, or other characters from later in Bible history, but you wouldn’t expect the only parallels to come from stories in Genesis 1-11 that people could have learned before their forefathers dispersed from Babel. Quite the opposite. I would expect most stories heard from Christian missionaries to emphasize the stories of Jesus in the Gospels rather than stories of the Flood or Babel. While it is important to check local stories for outside influence before considering them independent memories of history, the existence of parallels is not evidence of contamination, but potentially evidence of people remembering a shared history.

For the background of Leonard Woolley, see the document found here.

Regarding the timeline for things in this part of the Bible, there is some debate about whether it makes sense to use Septuagint chronology in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 or the dates collected from those chapters in the Masoretic text. If you use the Masoretic text the Flood occurred in 2348 BC (see Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pgs. 278) Master Books). If you use the Septuagint, you get another 780 years between the Flood and the modern day. For the difference, see the translations of Genesis 11:10-26 in the ESV (which uses the Masoretic text timeline as mentioned here), here and a translation of those verses in the Septuagint here. Historically, the Masoretic text dates have been considered more reliable. You can read a concise discussion of the options and reasoning here which explains and defends the Masoretic text position. I use the Masoretic text chronology in WiderBible.

Supporting the idea of two factions developing after the Flood, note that Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association suggests that only those who disobeyed God took part in the rebellion, suggesting that there were others who didn’t take part.

For the suggestion that Noah and his sons (perhaps excepting Ham) would’ve tried to persuade people to follow God rather than rebel, see note on Genesis 11:11, here.

For the suggestion that most of the people who no longer followed God took part in the migration and subsequent building project, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

If you look into the chronologies and timelines of ancient kingdoms, whether Babylonian or Egyptian, they quickly add up to more than the number of years Genesis says have elapsed since the Flood. These dates do present a challenge for literal belief in the Bible’s timeline, but not as large a challenge as might be initially suspected due to the multitude of assumptions that go into creating those timelines (see, for instance, here). Remember, archeologists are reconstructing the past from artifacts, from forgotten languages that have been discovered and deciphered, and using deduction and assumptions to fill in the gaps. This is not to say they aren’t diligently trying to find out the truth, only that the chronologies they develop are theories, not facts. For an example of an alternative Egyptian timeline that is more in accordance with the details found in the Bible, see here. Babylonian history represents a similar challenge, and there is a lot of history to fit into the years after the Flood in 2348 BC (see show note above), but, while this challenge is noted in the article here, until something provides strong support to discredit the timeline recorded in the Masoretic text (see show note above) I maintain that the best choice is to follow the clearest understanding of the Biblical text and have archeology bend it’s assumptions to fit the Bible rather than the other way around.

The timeline of when people migrated to Shinar and the subsequent events that occurred there is ambiguous in Genesis. The best estimate is based on the date for the birth of Peleg 101 years after the Flood (see Genesis 11:10-16), but assuming Peleg and the events on the plain of Shinar are linked, it could also have happened any time during Peleg’s life (see suggestion to that effect in the note on Genesis 10:25, here as well as note on Genesis 11:8, here) pushing the date out to 340 years after the Flood based on numbers in Genesis 11:10-19. Given a reference from Manetho, Ussher suggests 5 years after Peleg was born (see Ussher, James (2006-11-01). The Annals of the World (Kindle Locations 576-579). Master Books. Kindle Edition.). Elsewhere, 130 years (see note on Genesis 11:1, here)

For the number of people involved in the events of this story, I’ve see estimates

For the oft remembered Age of Discovery from the 15th century, see here.

In Genesis 11:2 the ESV suggests that people traveled “from the east” to get to the plain of Shinar. There’s the suggestion that this should be “eastward” according to Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 11:1-2, note. Andrews University Press. The lexicon on this verse (see here supports that idea suggesting they went east rather ‘from the east.’ Even if that is the case, however, there is a challenge still. If Ararat is in Armenia and Shinar is what we know as Mesopotamia, going from Ararat to Mesopotamia would be south. not either “east” or “from the east.” Two or three possibilities arise. First, perhaps the people traveled south first into the land of what became Assyria (as suggested by the note on Genesis 11:2, here) and came to the Euphrates valley, and then went east. The latter part of this idea is in the note on Genesis 11:2 here. Second, some commentators (see note on Genesis 11:2, here) suggest that Moses is talking about things happening “in the east” as everything in this story is to the east of where Moses lived during his life. And third, it is noted that the word “from the east” has a time connotation, as in, “from ancient times” perhaps giving the perspective of people traveling from the past into toward the present day as mentioned by Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 187). Pacific Press Publishing Association. This idea is supported by the lexicon reference mentioned earlier where “east” can also mean “formerly.”

For the idea that Shinar probably refers to all of Babylonia or southern Mesopotamia, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 175). Pacific Press Publishing Association. For an alternate, but apparently minor viewpoint that suggests northern Mesopotamia, see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 1029). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For further discussion see here. This encyclopedia suggests that both northern and southern Babylonia might be included. For Mesopotamia being the land “between rivers” see here. For identifying it as southern Iraq according to modern-day maps, see later show notes.

For other examples of how the climate has changed over time, see the article here. The article here assumes a longer timeline than is represented in the Bible, but the trend is presumably true of a wetter past than the weather today. Furthermore, salt from the river used in irrigation builds up in the soil over time making it less able to grow crops as outlined here.

For the length and geography of the Tigris and Euphrates, see here.

For the meaning of “Euphrates” see Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.

For a clay tablet showing a map of part of the area with canals that were used for trade and irrigation, see here.

For “one language” meaning both the words and vocabulary were identical, see note on Genesis 11:1, here.

For the suggestion that common language fits with the idea of a totalitarian mindset, that they all thought the same things and said the same things with the same words, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 187). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

For the conclusion that more than one person was involved in the decision to build the tower, see note on Genesis 11:2, here.

There are differing opinions about the motives people had for building the Tower of Babel. The most direct reasoning is given in Genesis 11:4 where people want to build a tower to “make a name” for themselves and to avoid being dispersed into smaller groups around the world, ideas singled out, among other places, in the note on Genesis 11:4, here.

One commentary, in the note on Genesis 11:4 note here mentions Nimrod by name and argues that the desire to “make a name” and leave a legacy probably stemmed from a leader, presumably as it is the leaders of great accomplishments who are remembered more often than the multitude of individuals working at lower levels of responsibility. Another source references the belief by some that Nimrod persuaded people to build the tower, but notes that other rabbinical sources claim that Nimrod went somewhere else. Again, as mentioned in an earlier show note, these are assumptions and speculation, plausible, but uncertain.

For “making a name” being a reference to reputation, see note on Genesis 11:4 here, note on Genesis 11:1, here, and note on Genesis 11:3-4 here.

For the concept and references in the Bible to the fact that it is God who “makes a name” see Genesis 12:2, Isaiah 63:12-14, and Jeremiah 32:20 as referenced by Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 187). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

Josephus (see chapter 4.1, here suggests that that God told people to send out colonies to populate the world after the Flood to decrease the likelihood of rebellion, but instead they disobeyed, staying together as one group. This theory fits with God’s command in Genesis 9:1 that people “fill the earth.” The idea also can be found in the note on Genesis 11:3 here (which references Josephus) the note on Genesis 11:2 here the comment on Genesis 11:4, here, and the note on Genesis 11:9, here.

For the suggestion that Noah, Shem, and / or Eber might’ve been reminding people of God’s command to disperse and populate the world, see note on Genesis 11:4, here.

For the timing of when Josephus wrote his record of the events at Babel in The Antiquities of the Jews see here.

For Josephus’ reference to Nimrod, see chapter 4.2, here. Regarding Nimrod’s lineage, it only states in Genesis 10:6-8 that Ham had a son named Cush and that Cush was the father of Nimrod. This could mean that Nimrod was either Cush’s direct son, as we’d think of it today, or a more distant descendant (grandson, great-grandson, etc.) as mentioned in the note on Genesis 10:8, here.

If you read commentaries about the events leading up to the Tower of Babel, more than one refers to a man named Nimrod (see, for instance, here. This is the same person that Josephus says persuaded and convinced people that they should ascribe their happiness to their own bravery rather than to God and who led out in the decision to build the Tower of Babel arguing it would allow them to survive any future Flood (see chapter 4.2 here. In talking about these motivations in the episode, I only briefly referenced Nimrod. There’s a lot more that could be said about Nimrod from one commentary or another, but almost all of it is speculation. This is not to say that Josephus is wrong in recording Nimrod as the leader of the settlers in Shinar. It’s possible, and even plausible, that Nimrod was the leader of the people who migrated to the plain of Shinar and that he inspired the building of a Tower at Babel, but Josephus also says that Nimrod was a tyrant and suggests more control over the population that appears to be in evidence at this point in history. For instance, Genesis 11:4 uses the language of persuasion (”Come, let us”) rather than the words a tyrant might use when giving a directive or an order to command people to build a city or a tower. This idea of persuasion also fits with Josephus’ statement in chapter 4.3 where he says that the people enthusiastically participated in the building project. If, therefore, Nimrod did lead out, he did it from the perspective of an organizer and encourager who could persuade but perhaps not control the populace and the populace went about the project of their own free will. That said, all of these details are speculation based on Josephus’ history. Nimrod is not mentioned anywhere in the story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis. The only clear link in Genesis between Nimrod and the events at the start of Genesis 11 is the name of the city “Babel.” Specifically, Genesis Genesis 10:10 says that Babel was part of the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom. This could mean that Nimrod founded the city (and if so would lend support to the theory that he was the leader and inspired the building of a tower to heaven within his city’s precincts) but it could also simply refer to the fact that Babel, and the three other cities mentioned in that verse, were part of the kingdom Nimrod started with when he began to rule. Given that ambiguity, and the fact that the events of Genesis 10 took place after the events at the start of Genesis 11 (see earlier show note), I moved the detailed discussion about Nimrod and the legends surrounding him into the next episode, where it fits into the events that happened after the Tower of Babel given that we know more of what Nimrod did after the events at Babel while we have to speculate or take Josephus’ word for any of Nimrod’s actions prior to that point. For more about Nimrod, see the Episode 17.

Josephus’ suggestion that they built the tower to avoid a Flood is also mentioned in note on Genesis 11:9, here and referenced as a generally held opinion, perhaps among Christians of the past, in the note on Genesis 11:4, here. Even so, an array of scholars dismiss the idea. See for example notes on Genesis 11:4, here, here, here, here, note on Genesis 11:3-4 here, note on Genesis 11, here, and note on Genesis 11:1, here. Together they all suggest that the builders would have chosen a mountain rather than a plain (and a plain between the Tigris and Euphrates at that) to build a tower taller than the Flood if that was their goal. While this is true, it ignores pragmatism. The plain is where there was room for a populous city and the farmland and freshwater required to support that population. Perhaps building a taller tower to account for the low elevation of the plain was an acceptable trade off to gain those advantages, but that is my speculation.

Suggesting that distrust of God led them to build an artificial mountain to survive a Flood and reach heaven on their own, see comment in Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 187). Pacific Press Publishing Association. Matthew Henry notes that building the tower might’ve been done in part as a purposeful insult to God (see note on Genesis 11, here). For comments about independence from God and self-reliance as motivations, see Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 11:3-4, note. Andrews University Press.

For the belief among the Assyrians and Babylonians who lived in the region of Babel later on that the sky was a solid surface see note on Genesis 11:4, here. Another commentary (see note on Genesis 11:4, here) references Deuteronomy 1:28 and suggests the reference to heaven is intended as exaggeration.

For more on Lucifer and his origin story and link to “satan” see WiderBible Episode 4 and WiderBible Article 7.

For the connection between Eve’s desire to be like God and the actions of the people at Babel, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 185-186). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

For the meaning of words in the travel to Shinar and building of a tower being related to Cain’s actions after killing Abel, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 187). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

For the suggestion that people at Babel were trying to take God’s place, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 187). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

The reference to brick being used to build the tower of Babel fits with archeology as several ancient authors (see in note on Genesis 11:3, here) reference that the walls of Babylon used brick. Based on this specificity, people suggest the author of Genesis came from a time and country in which buildings with stone would’ve been expected instead. See also note on Genesis 11:3-4 here as well as note on Genesis 11:3, here.

For the lack of stone in Mesopotamia but the presence of soil with sand and clay that served as good brick-making material, see note on Genesis 11:3, here.

According to tradition, they spent three years making and fire-baking the bricks and each brick was over 20 feet long, about 10 wide, and about 7.5 thick (assuming 18” to a cubit) and that they then spent 40 years building the tower. This information all comes from tradition, and I don’t see any support for those values beyond speculation or inventiveness. For the reference, see note on Genesis 11:3, here.

For sun-dried bricks being good enough for common houses, with the implication that they wouldn’t be good enough for the tower project itself, see note on Genesis 11:3, here and here.

For some details on sun dried mud bricks, see here and here.

For the durability of kiln-dried bricks over their sun-dried counterpart see note on Genesis 11:3, here and here.

The article here describes the chemistry of clay pottery being fired in a kiln, but the same chemistry probably applies to clay bricks.

For the current 2,500 PSI requirement of modern bricks, see here and the article, here. The reference to the weight of a polar bear supplied here.

For the chemistry lesson on mortar, I pieced together a series of sources. For a general overview of mortar, see here. The most helpful explanation of the history and composition of cement came from here. To get calcium oxide from limestone’s calcium carbonate, the rock is heated to release carbon dioxide as shown in the reaction equation here. That earlier source noted also the history of cement that hardens under water (hydraulic cement) and the Roman’s use of volcanic ash and the later English use of a high clay content limestone with some description of how silicates are involved in the reaction. It also made reference to the requirement that magnesium oxide content be kept low in the mixture. Based on the paper here this appears to be due to the fact that the hydration of magnesium oxide causes an expansion which, taking place after the rest of the mortar has already hardened, causes cracking. For a further description of cement chemistry that describes how Portland cement differs from Roman concrete, see also here.

In this episode, I use tar, bitumen, and asphalt interchangeably. Today, “tar” refers to something that came from the breakdown of organic materials (see here), “bitumen” comes from petroleum products and is known for its use as a cement (see here), and “asphalt” is similar and also noted for its waterproof quality (see here). One commentary suggests the word translated “slime” in some versions of Genesis 11:4 should be “asphalt” or “bitumen” (see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association). The lexicons for the verse use “tar,” “bitumen,” and “asphalt” synonymously.

For “tar” referring to cement or glue to hold the bricks together, see note on Genesis 11:3, here and note on Genesis 11:3-4 here.

For a definition and brief overview of modern bitumen and asphalt (and the interchangeability of those terms in common use) see here. The word used in the Hebrew can also mean either bitumen or asphalt according to the lexicon.

For an overview of oil seeps and the evaporation of more volatile components leaving only the thicker asphalt behind, see here. For tar boiling up out of the ground in the region around Babylon, modern Iraq (see here) as well as note on Genesis 11:3, here. For the record of tar floating down river from a tributary of the Euphrates toward Babylon and people sealing their boats with it, see note on Genesis 11:3, here.

For tar (or asphalt) softening when it is heated, along with various references as well as examples of its use as a waterproofing agent, see here.

For the record of tar floating down river from a tributary of the Euphrates toward Babylon and people sealing their boats with it, see note on Genesis 11:3, here.

For the kiln temperatures in modern brick production, see here.

For the low firing temperature of kiln-dried brick in ancient construction, and the subsequent ability of the tar to seep into the resulting porosity for a better mechanical grip and seal, see comment in the section on “Building Materials” here.

There’s a list of ancient authors who stated that the brick walls of Babylon were secured with bitumen in the note on Genesis 11:3, here and here and note on Genesis 11:4, here. They also comment on the difficulty of removing a brick from one of those buildings so constructed. See also Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For a description of the ziggurats found in the ruins and writings of Mesopotamia, see For more, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 8007-8033). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. Further support that the tower might’ve been pyramid-like comes from a reference to Strabo in the note on Genesis 11:4, here.

After a description of the design and function of ziggurats in later Mesopotamian history, and statement that we don’t have any literature suggesting common people used the tower, one source argues that the ziggurat was really built to make life easy for the god, so they could come down to receive offerings from people at the temple at the base of the ziggurat. It then suggests that the tower of Babel was not built so that people could go up to heaven, but so God could come down. This conclusion does not fit with an apparent reading of the story in Genesis nor other scholars who reference the building of the tower as both an attempt to insult God, to displace Him, or to ascend above the waters of any future Flood (see earlier show notes for references). This traditional conclusion, that the actions at Babel were in rebellion against God rather than a means to serve Him, is supported by God’s negative reaction to the project in Genesis 11:6-9. In addition, one of the stated purposes of the tower was the people’s efforts to make a name for themselves. No service for a god appears in evidence in their reasoning or elsewhere in the story. Perhaps the conclusion that a ziggurat was built in the service of a god is correct for the use of later ziggurats, but not the tower built in Genesis 11 as it doesn’t fit with the data we have in that story, but that is my conclusion. For the source in question, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 8007-8033). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.).

For the meaning of the word “ziggurat” see “ziggurat” entry here.

For a description of a ziggurat’s overall shape as well as the fact that it had a solid interior, see pg. 136 here.

For the number and references to ziggurats found by archeologists, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 8007-8033). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

For details on the ziggurat at Ur, see here. Slightly different dimensions are given here.

For a connection to the idea of building the tower as a mountain, see reference in note on Genesis 11:4, here.

For the construction materials used in building ziggurats and the description of ramps that led up to a room on the top, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 8007-8033). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. Whether the room for the god was a later addition is unknown. The story in Genesis makes no suggestion of service to God, rather it supports the idea that the purpose of the tower was for men elevating themselves.

For the translations of the names of ziggurats found by archeologists, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 8007-8033). Zondervan. Kindle Edition as well as Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 108). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For details on the Monadnock building in Chicago, see here; here and pg. 130 here. The word “monadnock” refers to and isolated mountain according to this article.

For Josephus’ comments on the tower being tall, but seeming shorter than it was due to its width, see chapter 4.3 here.

For the angle or repose of sand dunes, see here. See also further descriptions of the angle of repose here,

Josephus’ references to people’s willingness to go about building the tower are found in chapter 4.3 here.

John Calvin suggests that the fact that the bricks had to be made, rather than, presumably, using rocks that would be loose and scattered in the mountains, suggests a great degree of dedication in their rebellion against God. For more, see note on Genesis 11:2, here.

For more on the history of bricks and brick making, see the article here.

For different brick sizes, see details on the ziggurat at Ur, see here. Slightly different dimensions are given here. For another example see note on Genesis 11:4, here.

Whether they sun-dried any of the brick depends on if, as in the case of ziggurats, the inner layers of the building were constructed of sun-dried brick and only the outer layer was fired in a kiln or if they first sun-dried all the bricks until they were stable for transport and then took them to the kiln, but this is all my speculation.

It’s hard to know what transportation was available for bricks and tar but the invention of the wheel is quite old (though the timeline depends on your assumptions).

If the people building the tower in Genesis 11 thought that the only reason people died in the Flood is because they weren’t prepared, they couldn’t argue it was through lack of warning given the 120 years Noah likely spent building the ark. For more, see WiderBible Episode 12.

For Philo Judaeus, see here. For the engraving of names upon bricks, see note on Genesis 11:1, here. We know that Nebuchadnezzar, a later ruler of Babylon, engraved his own names on the bricks he used to remodel the city (see here) and its possible Philo Judaeus was confusing the story, but it’s also possible that Nebuchadnezzar was either reviving the old tradition, and doing with the bricks what the original builders of the tower did, or that he was simply doing similar things as he built monuments in order to make sure his legacy was assured.

For Josephus’ comment regarding the speed of construction see here . For other references see for the comment from the Book Jubiliees of 43 years (along with other unreliable legends) see here as well as note on Genesis 11:4, here.

While we don’t know how tall the tower got, it is safe to say they didn’t achieve their goal according to note on Genesis 11:6, here.

According to Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 108). Review and Herald Publishing Association., Herodotus describes the tower as 300 feet on a side at its base and 300 feet tall. The note on Genesis 11:4, here says it might’ve been around an eighth of a mile high one furlong, though that source also notes that Herodotus could be understood to claim that each of the 8 sections was an eighth of a mile tall, making the whole structure a full mile in height. Other references (see note on Genesis 11:4, here) suggest that it was only a quarter of a mile in width on the bottom, though, which would seem too tall and steep for brick and bitumen construction. For other legends claiming it was 6 to 12 miles high, though dismissed by the source as too tall, see note on Genesis 11:4, here referenced earlier. It is worth noting that it is unclear whether some of these heights refer to the original tower described in Genesis or to towers built later.

This tower and its height are noted by various ancient authors in the note on Genesis 11:4, here, but it’s not clear whether they reference this tower or a later construction in the city of Babylon. For more, see show notes on those towers later in the episode.

The phrase “let us” denotes that more than one member of the Trinity was involved in the investigation of the city and tower according to Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

The irony of God coming down to see a tower that was supposed to reach Him in heaven is mentioned by Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 189). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

Scholars suggest that God coming down to see the tower is a human description. God knew what was going on. See notes on Genesis 11:5 here and here as well as Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 188-189). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

For God showing Himself as a God who is methodical rather than hasty in judgment, see references in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For a reference to God’s investigations as a lesson for modern judges, see notes on Genesis 11:5, here and here.

For the idea that “nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them” means that the people building the tower would attempt anything, rather than that they would be capable of anything, see note on Genesis 11:6 here. For the suggestion that this means a godless kingdom would block the kingdom of God if God didn’t intervene, see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 11:6, note. Zondervan. For reference to God restraining evil in the world through history see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the idea that the builders of the city and the tower wanted to control the world, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For cooperation being only an asset if the right goals are set, and division is better than rebellion, see note on Genesis 11 in Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 108–123). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

For the tower functioning as a rallying point, if it had succeeded, for further plans against God, see For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

God is speaking to Himself when he says “us” as stated by the note on Genesis 11:7, here.

For the idea that it wasn’t different words but different pronunciations and meanings to the same words, see note on Genesis 11:9, here, note on Genesis 11:7 here, and note on Genesis 11:9, here. Elsewhere it is suggested that God only introduced a few languages and natural processes toward diversification took over from there according to the note on Genesis 11:7 here and supported by the statement on Genesis 11:9, here.

For a description of cognate words, see here. For the meaning of “burro” in Italian and Spanish, see here for a comparison originally mentioned here).

From what I could find, there’s not good consensus on language family trees. There are some big families, like Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan, but there are also many small language families that don’t appear related to the major languages and others besides that are isolated languages (like Basque) that don’t clearly fit a larger family (see pg. 1 here). As best scientists can tell right now, if you trace all the languages back, you don’t end up with a single family tree of languages, but a small forest, one that, I would guess, would eventually be reduced to a forest with about the same number of trees as there were languages when God confused the builders of the tower of Babel. For more, see pg. 12 and chapter 11 here which notes the struggle to even group families into macro families suggesting that unifying all into a single original family does not appear likely. See also here and here for a discussion of language diversity from a Biblical perspective.

For the suggestion that it was only different languages by nation or tribe, and not for each individual, see note on Genesis 11:7, here. The note on Genesis 10:25 here suggests that it was only 9 or 10 languages.

Evidently, if you are in England, the name for the city is “bay-bel” while the proper Hebrew would be pronounced “baw-bel” according to the article here.

For the city being named “Babel” and its connection with the confusion of the languages, see Genesis 11:9 and the footnote to that verse. See also note on Genesis 11:9, here, Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 11:6-7, note. Andrews University Press., Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.,

For the builders of Babel creating their own legacy, but not the legacy they had planned, see note on Genesis 11:9, here.

As an interesting parallel, the note on Genesis 11:9, here emphasizes the attempt of the builders of Babel to rely on their own works rather than Christ, even to the extent that they build upon the sand of the river valley rather than upon rock, a reference to Jesus’ admonition to build upon the rock of His teachings in Matthew 7:24-27.

For the suggestion that Genesis 10 is listing the people involved in rebelling against God at Babel and then leaves off and tells the story of Babel in Genesis 11 before continuing with the rest of the family tree, thus Babel the dividing line between one part of the family and the other and making it possible that this last branch of the family wasn’t involved in building the city or tower of Babel, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 184, 186-187). Pacific Press Publishing Association. That said, the names Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth also occur in Genesis 10 as part of the genealogical lists, and others in the lineage from Shem to Abram appear as well, so I would guess that if the list is a record of people involved in the events on the plain of Shinar, it likely isn’t a list of only those people but includes others who were part of the genealogy as well in order to describe the family tree clearly. See also note on Genesis 11:5 here where the author speculates that some followers of God might’ve gone to Shinar but then didn’t participate when they realized motives of the project.

For the name “Peleg” meaning “division” see footnote on Genesis 10:25.

For Peleg’s lifespan, given in Genesis 11:10-19, being the assumed range of years for the events at Babel, see earlier show note regarding the timeline of the migration to the plain of Shinar.

For examples of people assuming that the “division” reference to Peleg refers to the division of languages at Babel, see note on Genesis 10:25 note here which mentions that the verb “divide” only occurs three other times in the Hebrew scriptures (one of which is recaps the birth of Peleg) but another includes Psalm 55:9 that specifically refers to dividing “tongues.” (see lexicon entry here). Other examples of scholars who mention Peleg and “division” as possibly referring to the events at Babel include the note on Genesis 10:25 here, the notes in Genesis 11 here, as well as Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 859). Review and Herald Publishing Association and Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association. While the division of languages appears a reasonable conclusion, other theories exist. At least one scholar(see note on Genesis 10:25, here suggests the division refers to a dividing of the new world’s geography while another (See notes on Genesis 10:25, here) suggests the division of Shem’s family (with a similar idea found in Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.) or to the creating of canals between the Tigris and Euphrates.

The notes on Genesis 10:25, here and here and on Genesis 11, here suggest that people left Babel and went to their various inheritances that had been decided and doled out previously by Noah in Genesis 10. I think this unlikely. First, in order for Noah to have divided up the Earth and decided where his descendants would go, there would’ve had to be a general exploration of the post-Flood Earth. This is possible, but far from certain. Second, and more importantly, a people who had so recently engaged in a wholesale rebellion against God would be an unlikely group to now go inhabit the lands assigned to them previously by their God-fearing patriarch. Instead, if forced to disperse, wouldn’t many of them try to disperse to a place other than that which Noah had assigned them? Instead, Genesis 10 is an account of where people decided to go after Babel, not where they were directed to go while Genesis 11 is the back story of why they dispersed.

We can only speculate on who was and was not involved in the rebellion at Babel. Noah would appear to be an obvious choice given his previous willingness to be faithful to God in spite of what the rest of the world did. Shem is also plausible. Beyond that, the note on Genesis 11, here suggests that Eber was faithful to God and that is the reason he lived so long after the Flood (the longest of anyone born after the Flood) but equating age and faithfulness is conjecture.

For “Eber” being the origin of “Hebrew” see various references here as well as Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.

For the natural conclusion that, if the language hadn’t been changed, Peleg and his kids probably spoke the same language as Adam, see note on Genesis 11:1, here.

Beyond the logical argument that the people not at Babel wouldn’t have their language scrambled and would, therefore, retain the language they used previously, it is also worth nothing that the proper names in the history given in Genesis have meanings (i.e. “Peleg” means “division”). If the language was scrambled, you’d expect names to be simply a collection of sounds, not a word with a meaning as mentioned by the note on Genesis 11:1, here 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 other suggestions that the original language could’ve been Hebrew, see note on Genesis 11:1-2 here where it is suggested that everyone spoke Hebrew prior to the confusion of languages and comments in Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 184, 186-187). Pacific Press Publishing Association. In the past, this viewpoint of Hebrew as the original language was the traditional viewpoint, but not all scholars agree as mentioned in the note on Genesis 11:1, here, though it also references a scholar who admits that Hebrew might be closest to the original Semite language.

For people dispersing because they couldn’t understand each other and get along, see note on Genesis 11:8 here and note on Genesis 11:6-9 here.

For the scattering of the families from Babel being a fulfillment of God’s command in Genesis 9:1 see note on Genesis 11:8 here, note on Genesis 11:4, here, and note on Genesis 11:9 here which mentions that they probably scattered faster due to the confusion of languages than they would have otherwise.

As an interesting ending to the story, the languages that God confused when people rebelled against Him, he unified on the day of Pentecost when the disciples preached about Christ to the listening crowds and everyone was able to understand them even though they spoke in different languages. See Acts 2:1-13 and note on Genesis 11:6-9 here.

For the suggestion that the vocabulary used by Moses to refer to the scattering of the tower, see note on Genesis 11:4, here.

For Josephus’ statement that a windstorm blew the tower down, see chapter 4.3 here. For other legends, see here. See also note on Genesis 10:10, here.

For the tower at Birs-Nimrud showing the results of being struck by lightning and its effect on the brick and tar construction, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association., which is careful to note that this tower was only built in the 7th century B.C., so it at best represents the possible damage the original Tower of Babel would’ve received and is not the actual structure in question.

There are various theories about the remains of the tower of Babel. They tend to center around either the ruins of a tower in Babylon itself or a tower in Borsippa (also known as Birs-Nimrud), a city a few miles to the south of Babylon. One source claimed that the Babylonian astronomers named the Borsippa structure “the tower of languages” (see note on Genesis 11:9, here, though the source of that translation is unknown). The tower ruins at Borsippa are described as 2,300 feet in circumference and 235 feet high (see Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers), but the note in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association claims the site is only 156 feet high and that the tower there was not built until the 7th century B.C., so it would only represent later construction. That source also suggests that a tower in Babylon itself is most likely, given that Babylonian traditions suggest that the foundations of the tower in Babylon were very old and that the building had been restored several times. They suggest that after Xerxes destroyed the last version of the tower, Alexander the Great cleared the site to rebuild it but died before construction, leaving hardly anything at the site. As a result, traditions tend to associate the ruins at Borsippa, which are still standing to some extent, with the tower described in Genesis. See also Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 108). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For other scholars connecting the Babylonian site in later use with the location of the original tower, see note on Genesis 11:4, here.The note on Genesis 11:4, here suggests that neither location is likely as the remnants of the tower are probably gone.

As emphasis of a failed legacy, if the original site of Babel is the same as what Babylon, then we can’t find out any further information by digging as the ground water has destroyed all layers beneath what we have thus far unearthed, limited how far back the archeologist can go in uncovering the history of the city. For more, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7885-7889). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

There is some debate about whether the Babylon archeologists have found is at the same site as the Biblical city of Babel. Traditionally the two cities are identified as the same (see notes on Genesis 10:10, here, here, and here for examples) but there’s various theories that place it elsewhere. Regardless of the specifics, it’s important to realize that the lesson of the story remains whether or not archeologists have the precise location of Babel, and, in fact, there’s an irony in the fact that the location of the city of “confusion” is perhaps, itself a source of confusion today with the builders having not even managed to preserve the location of their city for the future let alone a memorial of their grandeur. Instead, we forget most everything except the fact that they rebelled against God.

The fact that the people in general left off building the city according to Genesis 11:8 does not prevent some people staying and finishing the city later on according to the note on Genesis 11:8, here, an idea echoed by Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association and the fact that Nimrod had it as part of his kingdom as stated in Genesis 10:10 and referenced in note on Genesis 11:9, here.

For the speculation that the original name of “Babylon” came from “babalu” meaning “to scatter” or “to disappear” and the locals revised the name to mean “gate of god” see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 108). Review and Herald Publishing Association and similarly For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For Babylon meaning “gate of God” or the “gate of the gods” see note on Genesis 11:9, here as well as Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. One could call this a rationalization for God arriving there to confuse the language, but one scholar (Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 190). Pacific Press Publishing Association.) notes that controlling the gate of a city meant you controlled the city, so the title “gate of God” still reflects their original goal of controlling heaven and taking God’s place.

For the Babylonian legends that thought of the founding of their city as the founding of the world, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

In connecting “Babel” and “Babylon,” it’s worth nothing that throughout the Old Testament, “Babel” is the Hebrew form of the name “Babylon” (see the concordance here as well as Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 108). Review and Herald Publishing Association). See also note on Genesis 11:9 in Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 108–123). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Further support for “Babylon” as synonymous with “Babel” come from Josephus (see chapter 4.3 here), various references in the notes on Genesis 11 here, and the note on Genesis 10:10, here. According to note on Genesis 10:10 here and here, the natives refer to the ruins of Babylon as “Babil.”

For Ion as father of the Ionians, see here and here. For Ion being linked to Javan, Noah’s grandson, see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 553). Review and Herald Publishing Association and Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.

For mythology of Hayk and Armenac, legendary founders of Armenia see pgs. 64-66 here. For Hayk’s relationship to Noah, see tradition from Moses of Chorene in the note on Genesis 10:3 here. For the identity of Moses of Chorene, see pg. 931 here.

For Magog being the founder of the Scythians, see the note on Genesis 10:2 here which includes the belief that he was the father of the Russians. For more on the Scythians themselves, see here. Taking the idea further, the note on Genesis 10:1-2 here suggests that they continued east into Asia and possibly the Americas.

For Javan, Togormah’s descendants (Hayk and Armenac), and Magog being involved at Babel, and therefore part of the dispersion from there, note the description in Genesis 10:2-5 that the people went “each with his own language.” That said, not everyone listed in Genesis 10 was necessarily involved at Babel. Some names, perhaps Japheth, Shem, Eber, and others may be listed for genealogical reasons rather than reasons of participation in the events at Babel as mentioned earlier.

For the date of the Mayflower’s departure on it’s voyage, see here.

For the reference to the Mayflower leaving later than planned, see references on pg. 30, here to delays caused by a sister ship that had to remain in England and that people had already been on-board for 2 months prior to departure due to these delays.

For the number of passengers aboard the Mayflower, and the proportion that were religious separatists, see here and here. Another source says there were 37 rather than 35 pilgrims. Two of those sources also make reference to the time in the Netherlands before the voyage across the Atlantic.

For the dimensions of the passenger area on the Mayflower, see here.

For the dates of the Mayflower’s voyage, see here which mentions the September 16 departure, and pg. 53, here which mentions anchoring on November 11.

For the results of disobeying the rules of the Church of England under Elizabeth I and James I, see pgs. 34 and 44 here for imprisonment, whippings, and hard labor. Elsewhere in the book, (at the end of pg. 34 and start of pg 35) there is reference to dissenters from the Church of England being executed for distributing literature, but it doesn’t say what the content of that literature was. Later on it notes that the author of the material was known afterward for being unpredictable, so it is unclear if the dissenters were executed for purely religious reasons or if they could be accused of more treasonous behavior.

For reasons the Pilgrims left the Netherlands, see a reference to economics here and comments about vice here.

For the Pilgrims seeing a forested coast when they reached the New World, see pg. 52, here.

In researching what maps the members of the Mayflower expedition used, I came across a reference on pg. 29, here suggesting that bought some maps, but I didn’t unearth the specifics. Regardless of what they used, though, given this map from Samuel Champlain made in 1613, only seven years before the Mayflower’s voyage, I think it safe to speculate that the passengers on the Mayflower had very limited information about the geography of their new home.

For John Calvin’s comment on God’s apparent efforts to encourage Noah after the Flood, see Note on Genesis 9:1 here.

For a discussion of the parallels between what God said to Adam and Eve when he created them and what He says to Noah, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 158). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

For humans ruling the animals by fear rather than love due to the fall, see note on Genesis 9:1-7, here.

For mention of the difference between the promise regarding the animals to Adam and Eve and what God says to Noah, see Genesis 9:1 note here.

The Bible doesn’t say whether or not people ate meat before the Flood. The notes on Genesis 9:3, here and here admit that. John Calvin, in his note on Genesis 9:3 (see here) thinks people did eat meat earlier in history, but doesn’t think the subject matters. As for my guess, while Noah and his kin may or may not have eaten meat, I would suspect other people did. Cain and his children showed little concern for human and I expect they held animal life in even lower regard. In any case, whether people ate meat before the Flood or not, this is the first instance in the Bible of people being given permission to eat anything other than a vegetarian diet.

For the idea that the world after the Flood didn’t offer the same abundance of nutritious food as the world before it, and that this was a reason God gave Noah permission to eat meat, see the note on Genesis 9:3, here and here as well as Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 263). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For a record of volcanic ash making the world colder, and a history of known and unknown volcanoes, see the article here.

For a discussion of how plants managed to survive the Flood and re-colonize the land afterward, see the article here.

For food storage details of grains, see here.

In much of the world it would only be a temporary condition after the Flood that made food scarce. People would figure out how to grow and store it, and the need to eat animals might largely go away. Even so, one commentary also speculated that in some places after the Flood, such as the polar regions, there would never be sufficient sources of non-animal food to survive. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 263). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

Beyond God’s permission to eat animals, there’s the question of whether “every moving thing” in Genesis 9:3 really refers to every type of animal or if there were some implied limits. To begin with, one commentary, in it’s notes on Genesis 9:3 (see here), suggests that phrases in the command can be understood to stop people from eating animals that have died naturally or been killed by other animals. The note on Genesis 9:3 in another commentary goes on to include people as off-limits as well since every “creeping” wouldn’t include humans who walk standing up. This idea is borne out in Genesis 9:5 where God is explicit in stating that He would require a reckoning of human blood from both animals and man, a statement that suggests human life is different than the lives of all other living things. Seventh-Day Adventist commentators further suggest that God was permitting only the eating of clean animals. Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals as those terms are used in reference to the animals who were to board the Ark in Genesis 7:2 and the animals Noah sacrificed in Genesis 8:20. They suggest that the animals men were allowed to eat was obvious, so God didn’t emphasize it to Noah, but only later defined clean and unclean animals explicitly to the the Israelites (see Leviticus 11) when the distinction had been forgotten. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association as well as Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 159). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

For rules against eating blood in the ancient near east being absent other than this record in Genesis, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 159). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

Commentaries suggest the rule against eating blood had to do with at least two things. First, it prevented some cruelty to animals by stopping people from cooking animals alive, as well as, perhaps, encouraging people to kill animals in the least painful way possible. Secondly, it singled-out blood as a symbolic element of life, something repeated in the sacrificial system given to Moses (see Leviticus 17:11). This is a symbol that continued through the Old Testament and reached a climax in the sacrifice of Jesus’ blood to save all human lives. For more, see the notes on Genesis 9:4, here and here, as well as a summary here.

The rule against eating blood was repeated in the New Testament in Acts 15:20 and 29 which suggests it is still something important today according to the note on Genesis 9:4 here. In the late middle ages one Jewish Bible scholar argued that the rule against eating blood was there so that people would only eat meat when they were willing to go through the involved process required to drain all the blood, something which would keep the killing of animals to a minimum. Furthermore, in practice, one can’t drain all the blood from an animal. This suggests the only effective way to avoid eating blood is to avoid eating meat. For more, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 160-161). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

When Cain killed Abel, God didn’t have Cain executed. After the Flood, that situation changed and God allowed humans to execute justice against murderers according to the note on Genesis 9:6 here.

One scholar noted that there are many verbs in Hebrew that refer to killing either animals or humans, but only one that applies solely to humans, and that is the verb used in the Ten Commandments. For more, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 161-162). Pacific Press Publishing Association as well as footnote 302 at the bottom of page 162 that points out the theological challenges this presents for the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites.

One commentary, in the note on Genesis 9:5 (see here), notes that God will find the murderer out and punish them, including destroying the specific animal that kills a human. Furthermore, according to John Calvin, no one can harm another human without hurting God Himself (see note on Genesis 9:6 here). Two commentaries note that the rule against shedding human blood applies personally as well as interpersonally. People aren’t only responsible for harm they cause others, but harm they do to themselves. This includes suicide (see the note on Genesis 9:5, here) and other actions that prematurely shorten life (see note on Genesis 9:5, here).

One commentary, in the note on Genesis 9:9 here, emphasizes that God’s promise that there wouldn’t be a future worldwide Flood was made both to everyone alive and everyone who would be alive in the future.

God’s promise that there wouldn’t be another Flood covering the whole Earth doesn’t preclude local Floods. See note on Genesis 9:11, here.

For far more details about rainbows, see here.

In the notes on Genesis 9:13 here, here, and here, the authors suggest that there were rainbows before the Flood, but they had no special significance. Another scholar, in the note on Genesis 9:12 here, thinks there had always been both rain and rainbows while this one assumes rainbows existed were around before this point because they are a natural phenomenon. John Calvin in his note on Genesis 9:13 (see here) thought it was silly to believe there were no rainbows until after the Flood. On the other side of the debate, Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association argues that the use of the rainbow as a sign of the promise assumes it had never been seen before. In addition, this commentary on Genesis 9:13 admits that the language supports either the view that this was the first rainbow or that this is the first time the rainbow had any meaning, but goes on to say that simple interpretation of this being the first rainbow is probably the better one. The note on Genesis 9:13, here, admits that both sides have their proponents, but states that most Christian interpreters favor the idea that the rainbow existed before the Flood. Other summaries of different opinions can be found in Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers as well as the note on Genesis 9:13, here, which concludes that there would’ve been rainbows before this point unless there had been no rain.

Regarding rainbows, it’s interesting to note that they also appear in relation to God in both Ezekiel 1:28 and Revelation 4:3 as mentioned in Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 925). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For a discussion of why there probably wasn’t rain before the Flood, see Episode 12 and the show notes associated with it.

For the impression that Noah was probably looking at a rainbow as God made the promise, see the comment in the note on Genesis 9:17 here.

For a comment that aftershocks can come years after a larger earthquake, see here.

For the record rainstorm, dumping about 3 inches of rain in an hour over a 24 hour period, see here.

For the historic understanding of Ararat being located in modern Armenia see Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers and Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 70). Review and Herald Publishing Association. Supporting the idea that Noah might have looked out at the Armenian highlands, see here which notes that no part of modern Armenia is lowlands, and much of what was lowlands may still have been covered by receding Flood waters.

One of the counter arguments to Armenia as the location of the Ark is based on the phrase later in Genesis 11:2 that people traveled “to the east” to get to Shinar (probably southern Mesopotamia according to Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.). This comes up in the comment on Genesis 8:4, here, but it also notes that the phrase can be translated to mean either ‘from the east’ or ‘to the east’. I wonder as well, if the “east” reference is from the perspective of Moses, the author of Genesis. In any case, that the mountains of Ararat are mountains in Armenia is probably the traditional view (see the prevalence of the argument here, and the one I use until some other more compelling evidence comes up. For the historic extent of the region termed “Armenia” as well as a reference to Armenia as one of the oldest starting places of civilization, see here.

For the borders of modern Armenia showing it as a landlocked country with various border neighbors, see here. For the extent of historic Armenia, see here.

For more on the various mountain ranges crossing through Armenia, some of which might be the final resting place of the Ark, see starting on pg. 134, here.

This is all speculation, but if Noah and his family (or the generations that came later and knew just where the Ark landed) did reuse the ship, perhaps the most likely thing we’d find today would be the thick outer hull. Between the layers of pitch inside and outside (see Genesis 6:14) and any other measures used to make the hull solid and waterproof, the hull was probably the most difficult part of the ship to break down and may not have been worth the effort. Instead, for the early years of settling the new world, Noah and his family may have gotten enough wood from other parts of the Ark to meet their needs. Then, as the years went by, new forests would’ve begun to grow supplying fresh lumber closer to the settlement and making it unnecessary to harvest wood from the Ark itself. See here for a conceptual example of how the hull of Noah’s Ark might have been reinforced.

Today, people still search for Noah’s ark, but, based on the suspicion that Noah and his family would’ve wanted to re-use everything they could from the ship in starting a new settlement (see that and other reasons here, it’s plausible not much of the Ark still remains to be found. Even so, we can only speculate on whether Noah re-used the wood of the Ark to build a homestead, or even what kind of homestead he might have built. In Genesis 9:21, probably at least a few years after leaving the Ark (if nothing else, it takes a vineyard a while to produce grapes), Noah is still using a tent. This could’ve been a temporary tent in the fields, a home during the warmer part of the year, or perhaps a permanent dwelling because the weather never got so cold as to require anything more than a tent. There are many things we don’t know about what Noah did in starting a new home, but it’s perhaps reasonable to guess they’d re-use as much of the Ark as they could, and if they did, it would’ve taken sincere faith that Ark’s job was done because of God’s promise that there would never again be a worldwide Flood

For the chiseling of cisterns and use of hydraulic plaster in ancient societies, see pg. 1919-1920 here.

Genesis doesn’t say how much time passed between the day Noah left the Ark and the point at which he drank wine and became drunk, but we can make an educated guess. In his reaction, Noah mentions Ham’s son, Canaan. Canaan is listed fourth in the genealogy in Genesis 10:6. This isn’t proof that Canaan was Ham’s fourth son, but it is possible. Assuming no twins, and that Canaan was the fourth child, this puts the incident no sooner than around 8 years after leaving the Ark. If Canaan is named because he was somehow involved in Ham’s crime, it pushes the date out even further as it is reasonable to suspect that Canaan would need to be an adult to bear responsibility. This may be why the note on Genesis 9:24, here, one commentary suggests the events surrounding Noah’s drunkenness couldn’t have happened until at least 20 after the Flood, though whether they are making this assumption based on the belief that Canaan, Ham’s son, was involved in Ham’s crime is unclear. See also note on Genesis 9:20, here for another commentary suggesting Canaan might have been an adult when the drunkenness incident occurred.

According to the notes on Genesis 9:20, here and here Armenia is good at growing grapes. Another commentary, in the note on Genesis 9:20, here, while stating that one ancient source says grapes didn’t do well in Armenia, also mentions the belief among some Armenians that after leaving the Ark Noah went to Yerevan, a city that is today near the traditional Mount Ararat that has a history of vineyards and wine making. This is most likely folklore. The proximity of Yerevan to Ararat is only noteworthy if Ararat is the actual resting place of the Ark, something considered doubtful given the possibility that it formed after the Flood rather than during it (see show notes in Episode 14).

For the discovery of one of the oldest wine-making sites in the world in Armenia, see here.

For the grapes found in the Armenia cave matching the grapes still used to make wine today, see here.

For the time it takes to grow grapes from planting to the first harvest, see pg. 102 here. The source doesn’t state whether that timeline starts from planning a vine cutting or from planting a grape seed itself.

We have no way of knowing whether grape-growing after the Flood went well or poorly. On the one hand, the world had just been destroyed by the Flood, on the other hand, the world since that time has been able to grow bunches of grapes that required two men to carry it (see Numbers 13:23) and the record holder today that weighed in at 22 pounds. In addition, just 30 years of selective growing developed the Japanese Ruby Roman grape variety that grows to the size of a ping-pong ball, so Noah’s grapes could’ve been of any size.

A few scholars suggest Noah didn’t know the effects of wine, either because it hadn’t been made before this point (see the note on Genesis 9:20, here or note on Genesis 9:21, here) or because he was simply unfamiliar with what wine would do to him (see the note on Genesis 9:20 here and here as well as the notes on Genesis 9:21 here and here).

We have only speculation to work with when it comes to whether or not there was alcohol before the Flood, but considering that people throughout history all around the world have figured out ways of making alcohol, the question likely revolves around whether or not the right strain of yeast existed prior to the Flood, which I think is likely. Given that all the ingredients were present, I would guess that alcoholic grape juice probably at least existed among the people who rebelled against God and died in the Flood.

For the process of fermentation in grapes, see here and here. You might get the idea that juice ferments to wine fairly easily, but that’s not necessarily true. Grape juice spoils easily. Making wine takes a lot of work. For the importance of controlling bacteria, getting the right strain of yeast, and managing the temperature and oxygen access during fermentation, see here. For the difficulty of making wine at cold temperatures (10-15 degrees C) , see pg 126, here and the start of section 16.6.3.1 on pg 236 here. For the presence of acetic acid (vinegar) producing bacteria on grapes and the conversion of alcohol to vinegar if oxygen is allowed to mix with the wine where these bacteria are present, see comments on pgs. 242 and 244 here as well as pg. 19 here and other comments here. To get a sense of the complexity of fermenting grapes “properly,” see a modern list of considerations here.

In the Bible, its not always clear when a text is referring to unfermented grape juice and when it’s talking about fermented wine. In fact, throughout the Bible it uses the same word to refer to both types of drink (see pg 1016 here and starting end of pg. 4 here). Instead, if you can’t figure out whether grape juice or wine is intended based on the language alone, another option is to look at technology. Were people in ancient times even capable of preserving grape juice to avoid fermentation? It appears they were. From comments on pg. 28 here(see paragraph beginning “Many of the wines”) and pgs 23-30 here (as well as a summary of references starting with the last paragraph on pg. 131 here) there is some evidence that they either filtered or boiled or cooled grape juice to stop fermentation. That said, another author (see pg. 91 and onward here argues the opposite position. Regardless of who is right, even the best analysis of ancient technology and practice can only go so far. Even assuming we had ironclad proof that people in ancient times could keep grape juice from fermenting, it doesn’t mean they did. One of the problems with this debate is the likelihood of bias. (This is especially true when the book is published by a temperance society as I think it is unlikely a temperance society would publish an opinion promoting wine). With that in mind, I do think context and theology favor the idea that unfermented grape juice is considered good in the Bible while fermented wine is denounced. Take a few examples. Leviticus 10:9-11 tells the priests not to drink wine or strong drink. Proverbs 31:4-5 suggests kings shouldn’t drink wine or strong drink. Proverbs 20:1 speaks of strong drink in negative terms. Given the known effects of alcohol, I think it is reasonable to conclude that these references are probably discussing fermented, alcoholic wine. If that’s true, and you go a step further and assume that all grape juice in the Bible is fermented, it presents a conundrum both in John 2:6-11, where Jesus turns grape juice into wine, and Matthew 26:27-29, where Jesus serves the fruit of the vine to His disciples at the last supper. In the first case, would Jesus serve 120-180 gallons of alcoholic wine at a wedding given the known effects of alcohol? In the second story, would He compare His blood, and belief in His sacrifice, to something known to cause delusions? If not, then it makes sense to conclude that Jesus used unfermented grape juice on those occasions. And since the last supper happened likely around March or April (see pgs. 4 and 841-842 in Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary. Review and Herald Publishing Association.) well after the grape harvest which happened in the fall (see pg. 36, here), it also follows that the Jews in Jesus’ day had a method to keep the juice of the “fruit of the vine” from fermenting for at least the several months between the harvest and the passover. Considering this, and setting aside debates about linguistics and technology, I think it reasonable to suggest that the Bible refers to at least two types of grape juice: the unfermented kind, and the alcoholic version. Furthermore, I doubt Jesus violated His own message given to Moses (See Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 for Jesus using the name of God to refer to Himself) or His own wisdom given to Solomon (see 1 Kings 4:29) and promoted the use of alcohol while on Earth, but rather that He gave both the people at the wedding and His disciples unfermented grape juice. For a further discussion of the theological implications of arguing alcoholic wine was used at the last supper (with the potential implication that such wine would be suitable for communion today) as claimed in the last line of pg. 380, here), see pg. 4, here.

In Exodus 12:15 the Israelites were told to remove leaven from their homes for the feast of the Passover. Pgs. 15-17 here (from a sermon published in 1859) suggests that the Hebrew word for “leaven” can also mean “yeast” (supported by Strong’s

Despite non-Biblical time lines, chapter 1 of the book here gives a summary of evidence that alcohol use goes far back into ancient history. Furthermore, given the description of the people before the Flood in Genesis 6:5 and the fact that Cain liked growing things (see Genesis 4:2-3, it is possible — or probable — that Cain’s descendants figured out how to make alcohol before the Flood. If they did, I imagine Noah would’ve known about it, making his drunkenness after the Flood more purposeful than innocent.

For Noah’s drinking coming after celebrating the grape harvest, see note on Genesis 9:20, here. If that’s the case, it would’ve had to be long enough after the grapes had been crushed for them to ferment.

For the average percent alcohol in wine, see here.

For alcohol causing the release of endorphins and raising serotonin levels, see here. For endorphins link to pleasure, see here. For serotonin’s mood-boosting effect, see here. Serotonin levels increase with even a single episode of drinking according to this article. For other health effects of drinking alcohol, see this site that has an interesting interactive graphic about how alcohol affects different parts of your body.

For the use of alcohol to help with anxiety and depression after a trauma, see study here. According to the study, when people experience trauma, endorphin levels in the brain go up. Over time, the brain adapts to this higher concentration of endorphins, leaving the potential for endorphin withdrawal when the traumatic event is over. People then may drink alcohol to release endorphins and compensate. That said, this endorphin withdrawal only lasts from hours to days according to the study. Based on the fact that the vineyard would’ve come years after the Flood (it takes at least a few years to grow grapes in a new vineyard), if Noah was using alcohol to cope, I would guess it had less to do with short-term endorphin withdrawal and was more likely related to the long-term effects of traumatic memories of the Flood and the challenges of starting over.

For the suggestion that Noah drank to excess in part because of the state of the world after the Flood, see note on Genesis 9:21, here.

John Calvin thought the point of Noah’s drunkenness is less that there had never been wine, but instead a lesson to us of the dangers of drinking and that when Noah was mocked by Ham it was just desserts for Noah’s drinking (see note on Genesis 9:21-22, here). A more positive perspective can be found in the note on Genesis 9:21, here, which points out that the story of Noah’s drunkenness also serves to encourage people who made and continue to make these same mistakes today. For all such people there is still hope, still an opportunity to repent. It emphasizes that Noah was not safe from sin or failure, but that he was righteous not because of his own works, but because of faith, the same opportunity open to us today. As an added note, lest there be doubt about Noah’s standing in the history of God’s followers, much later in the Bible Noah was still held in very high esteem as, in Ezekiel 14:12-14, God refers to three people as examples of righteousness, and Noah’s name is among them.

It’s not clear why Noah went to sleep in a tent. Perhaps when he left the Ark the weather was mild enough that he didn’t need a house for use in winter. Perhaps it was a temporary tent that was set up near the vineyard for the harvest. It might have been a tent used in traveling around to different grazing areas with flocks of sheep. This may have been the only shelter Noah needed, or it may have functioned as a temporary dwelling while away from the main settlement.

For the idea that Noah purposely exposed himself in his tent, see notes on Genesis 9:21, here and here.

There’s plenty of speculation about what exactly Ham’s crime was. One commentary (see the note on Genesis 9:22, here) gives a list of possibilities brought up by Jewish tradition including allusions to sex with Noah, castration of Noah or incantation that caused Noah to be impotent, or incest with his own mother (Noah’s wife), but then states that these ideas are all speculation (though admitting just looking at Noah while naked wouldn’t seem like enough to bring the curse pronounced later on Canaan). Another commentary (see the note on Genesis 9:22, here) suggests that the problem wasn’t that Ham looked at Noah, but that he went out and told others in order to mock him, thus showing disrespect, an idea also outlined in the note on Genesis 9:22, here and here as well as For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the parallels between what Eve did in Eden and what Ham did in looking at Noah, as well as the idea that it was more than a brief glimpse, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 164). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

For the suggestion that Ham used Noah’s drunkenness as an excuse for his own future sins, see Note on Genesis 9:22 here.

In the ESV, Noah in Genesis 9:24 calls Ham his “youngest” son, this is probably right, but there’s more than a little debate about it. For the details of that debate, see the WiderBible article here.

The fact that all Shem and Japheth did was “cover” Noah adds support to the belief that Ham’s crime was “looking” and not one of the other more extreme theories mentioned in an earlier show note. If castration or incest were the real crime being alluded to, why would covering Noah with a cloak remedy the problem? For more, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 164). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

The world used in Genesis 9:23 to describe how Shem and Japheth “covered” Noah is used throughout the Old Testament (152 times), including in reference to the covering of sins in Psalm 32:1.

From the not on Genesis 9, here, “Ham” means “black” while “Canaan” means “the merchantman.” That said, as one study Bible pointed out (see below) this curse from Noah doesn’t justify making slaves of people with black skin. Most of Ham’s descendants are known to be Caucasian, and the Canaanites themselves are shown that way in Egyptian paintings. For more see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 9:25, note. Zondervan.

For references to Origen and other traditions about how Canaan was involved in Ham’s crime against Noah, see notes on Genesis 9:24, here and here). There are also references to Canaan’s possible involvement in the note on Genesis 9:22, here and the note on Genesis 9:25, here. Ham’s involvement is mentioned as a possibility in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

One commentary suggests that Ham didn’t get off without punishment, but rather that his punishment came in the fact that his descendants through Canaan would be punished. Another scholar suggests the reference to Canaan emphasized the line of descent rather than the individual (see note on Genesis 9:25 in Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 108–123). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.). A different commentary (see below) thought the mention of “Canaan” might have helped the Israelites understand the origin and history of the Canaanites whose land they were to invade and conquer. For more, see For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

The footnote on pg 165 of Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 165). Pacific Press Publishing Association references a suggestion that Canaan was the result of incest between Ham and his mother. This is speculation based on Leviticus 20:10-17 where ‘uncovered…nakedness’ is used. But if this is the case, the crime and the remedy don’t match. A symbolic nakedness (if the verse is really referencing incest) would not be remedied by literally covering Noah with a blanket. Other ideas that Ham did something more than looking or mocking, as mentioned in Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7760-7769). Zondervan. Kindle Edition have the same problem as they don’t explain how literal covering by Shem and Japheth would solve symbolic nakedness. As such, I assume that Leviticus 20 references nakedness as a figure of speech where Genesis 9 refers to literal nakedness.

For the idea that Noah stated this as prophecy, and not out parental anger or favoritism, see note on Genesis 9:22, here.

You can see Noah’s curse on Canaan (and by extension, Ham) as Noah pronouncing their fate, or as a reference to where their choices were headed. This idea comes out in the note on Genesis 9:22, here. This idea also comes out in the summary of reasons Noah referenced Canaan instead of Ham in his curse in the note on Genesis 9:25, here where the commentary concludes that the most likely reasons Noah mentioned Canaan were because either (A) Canaan was the real culprit, (B) Canaan was developing the evil character of his father, or (C) because God showed Noah that the Canaanites would ultimately deserve such a curse.

Both the failure of Adam and Eve with the fruit in the Garden of Eden and the failure of Ham in mocking Noah were easy tests. These people didn’t fail because they couldn’t do something hard, they failed because they chose to do something that should have been easy to avoid.

For the word in Genesis 9:25 being translated as either “servant” or “slave” see the lexicon.

Noah’s prophecy about the descendants of Shem, Japheth, and Ham all came true, but the specifics of how they came true don’t become apparent until after the families began to spread out around the world, a story that’s a couple of episodes away.

For a reference to the idea that Shem and Japheth’s behavior suggests they were in the habit of treating their father with respect, see note on Genesis 9:22, here.

While Shem, Ham, and Japheth all passed on habits to their children, that is not to say the children had no ability to make different choices. Just as Cain and Abel came from the same parents but went in different directions, so Canaan’s descendants were still free to choose whether or not to follow God. If nowhere else, this is at least illustrated in Joshua 2, Joshua 6:22, Hebrews 11:31, and Matthew 1 where Rahab, a citizen of a Canaanite city is allowed to join the Israelites, on the basis of faith, and becomes part of the family tree of Jesus.

The link between choices (or actions), habits, character, and destiny is mentioned in a quote by Tryon Edwards, found on pgs. 114-115, here.

For the origin of the reference to the colonists aboard the Mayflower as the “Pilgrim fathers” see here.

Coming from a religious background, as time went on, the colonists in Plymouth were inclined to make laws that enforced their opinions of proper religious behavior. See for example the paragraph starting, “Transgressions of proper religious and moral behavior” here as well a later reference in that source that mentions they fined, whipped, and banished Quakers.

The comment in Genesis 9:19 makes it clear that no other humans survived the Flood to contribute to the population of the world. See note on Genesis 9:19, here.

It not necessarily obvious, but God told Noah and his sons to ‘fill the earth’ in Genesis 9:1 and this is taken as a reference to spreading out. See, for instance, the note on Genesis 11:2, here, on Genesis 11:1-4, here, and on Genesis 11:1, here. Both this commentary, in the note on Genesis 11:4, and Josephus suggest that it was perhaps known that God said people should disperse in colonies and that people were not doing that. For Josephus reference, see section 4.1, here.

As mentioned in the show notes for Episode 12, commentaries differ on whether Noah and his family boarded the Ark at the start or end of the seven days before the Flood. This podcast assumes they boarded at the start of that week. Commentaries note that the start of the civil year, which predates the Jewish relgious year began at the autumn equinox (see comments on Genesis 7:11 here and here). Currently the autumn equinox falls about September 22 or 23 according to this article. If Noah’s year started on the same dates as the equinoxes we have today, and the Flood started on the seventeenth day of the second month (Genesis 7:11), then it began around November 9, meaning that Noah and his family boarded the Ark on November 2, but this is only a best guess. Genesis records the date and year when the Flood started, but doesn’t tell us how that aligns with the months on our calendars today. Due to the precession of the equinoxes, 6,000 years ago, the equinox would’ve been shifted by about 3 months, but the Gregorian calendar we use today keeps time according to the seasons, so we keep this shift from accumulating (see here). That said, I used the modern date of the equinox for building a timeline, ignoring any precession effects.

Genesis doesn’t say what family members Noah left behind when he boarded the Ark, but [Genesis 5:30] states that Noah had brothers and sisters, so they were either already dead, or left behind. We know nothing about the families of Noah’s wife or his daughters-in-law, but there’s every reason to think they had to leave behind even more family members when boarding the Ark.

For details on the construction of the Ark, see Episode 11 and Episode 12 and the show notes that go with them.

The word for “ark” used in Genesis is similar to the root word the Egyptians used to refer to a coffin. For details, see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 94–95). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

When you see Illustrations of the Ark, often there’s a ramp leading up to the door. This makes sense. A lot of large animals had to board the Ark and getting supplies up and into the ship for storing them down in the cargo hold would be lots easier with carts, wheels, and ramps than it would with stairs and ladders. At the same time, a rigid ramp structure would be a hazard once the Ark lifted off from its dry dock during the Flood. In those first moments, the waves might push it into the dock, risking damage to the side of the ship before the voyage was even underway. Considering these competing concerns, I wonder if a ramp would’ve been used for the greater part of construction, perhaps up through the loading of the animals, but then disassembled and and replaced with a simpler structure more akin to a ladder before Noah and his family boarded the vessel.

In Genesis 6:16 God tells Noah to put a door in the side of the Ark. We don’t know anything else about what the door was like, but based on what we know about ships, it’s reasonable to guess that the door entered near the top of the ship, probably above the waterline, in order to minimize the likelihood that water would want to leak in around the borders of it. Furthermore, the door would probably be close to either the bow or stern since the bending forces (hogging and sagging) on a ship would be greatest in the middle, and having an opening in the framing of the ship in that location would unncessarily weaken the structure.

For God closing the door of the Ark and sealing Noah and his family inside, see the show notes on Episode 12.

The source here suggests that a variety of plant oils were used for latern fuel as well as bees wax. It is also possible that Noah used an animal fat lantern.

Admittedly, I decided not to tackle the what-animals-were-on-the-Ark question. That subject is highly speculative and other people have already delved far deeper into it than I can. On the strength of their research, I accept that enough animals boarded the Ark to be the ancestors of the animals we see in the world today. If you want to tunnel into the specifics, this article has an overview.

We don’t know what windows there were in the top of the Ark, but even if Noah or his family had a way of looking out through them, the rain probably cut visibility to just a few feet. For more on the design of the Ark, see Episode 11.

For the emphasis of the power of the water, see the note on Genesis 7:17-19 by this author who suggests the reference is at first to the Ark floating, and then interprets the “increased exceedingly” comment to suggest that a strong current set in, forcing the Ark along with the flow. The note on Genesis 7:17-19, here also sees different stages of the Flood in these verses. See also Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 149). Pacific Press Publishing Association which notes that Genesis uses the word “prevail” which comes from a military background and gives you the idea that the water defeated the land.

While it is speculation to think the Ark was built at the top of a hill, it makes sense that you might try to build it there for reasons explained in Episodes 11 and 12. Even so, hilltops have their hazards including lightning that often strikes high points of land and landslides that would happen when saturated soil broke loose from the hill. We don’t know what Noah knew of these dangers, or if God gave him further instructions than the brief summary in Genesis 6:13-21, but there are some things a boat builder can do to manage the risk of a landslide and the concerns posed by lightning. First, regarding landslides, building at the top of a hill puts you above most of the danger. Then, rather than constructing the Ark on top of the soil, he probably dug down until he reached bedrock, if nothing else so the hull supports for the Ark would rest on a solid surface during construction. We don’t know that Noah did this, but if so it fits nicely with Christ’s command in Matthew 7:24-27 about building on the rock, in that case an analogy to believing in Christ. Regarding lightning strikes, while Noah probably didn’t know much about them aside from what God perhaps explained, he could have left a few trees surrounding the Ark specifically as sacrificial lightning rods, trees that would take the brunt of the energy and channel it away from the Ark. Trees are natures lightning rods (see here) and even if Noah didn’t leave trees around the Ark on purpose, any 300 foot redwood or other tall tree growing somewhat down the slope from the Ark would still tower above the 50 foot hull of the ship and help to shield it from the storm.

For the belief by Martin Luther that it took most or all of 40 days of rain before the Ark floated free, see paragraph starting, “For forty days the ark stood” here. The note on Genesis 7:17 in this commentary references a Jewish scholar who also thought the Ark didn’t float free for the first 40 days. If true, and despite Luther’s reference to “some plain,” if the Ark didn’t float on the water until the end of the 40 days of rain, it supports the idea that the Ark was built at some higher elevation that the rising waves took some time to reach.

For suggestions outside the Bible that the Flood of Genesis was a local, not global, event, see here as well as this article that connects the Flood story in Genesis to theories about how the Black Sea flooded.

For the suggestion from a commentary written 100 years ago that the global Flood is an exagerration and a physical impossibility, see note on Genesis 7:19, here. For the year the Genesis edition of that commentary was written, see here.

The Flood described in Genesis was not a local event. It covered the world. The story makes this clear in Genesis 7:19-20 where it says that the highest mountains were covered with water, a point recognized by one commentary in its note on Genesis 7:20. Even so, not all scholars accept that idea. The note on Genesis 7:19, here thinks a global flood is impossible and calls the description hyperbole since the authors cannot imagine how the Himalayas might’ve been under water. In the note on Genesis 7:19 in another commentary the author tries to get around that issue by suggesting that the Flood affected only the area of the Earth where men had inhabited, plus a margin further, and that the “high hills” refers to only the hills men knew about (an idea also echoed in the note on Genesis 7:17-19, here. If you investigate that idea, it does very little to limit the extent of the Flood. In the story, the Ark comes to rest on Mt. Ararat, a tall mountain, even today. Covering Mt. Ararat to a depth of 15 cubits still covers most of the world with water with only a section of the Himalayas and a few of the tallest peaks elsewhere in the world poking through the surface (an idea offered in part by the note in Genesis 7:14-24 in this commentary). If you want a visual idea of what would be covered if the Flood reached only to the summit of Mt. Ararat, you can put the elevation (found in meters here) into this map. One commentary offers the idea that the Ark only landed in the region of Ararat, not necessarily at the peak of the mountain, but it also mentions that the mountain ranges during the Flood were, perhaps, not as tall as they are today (see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 98-99). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.). This idea also comes out in this article which suggests that most creation researchers think the world before the Flood had only one continent with low hills surrounded by shallow seas. Geologists also think the world was, at one time, mostly submerged due to shallow seas and ocean ridges, as mentioned in this article (see also a later show note about Rodinia for making sense of super-continents). Taking that idea further, another article offers the theory that shallow oceans deepened at the end of the Flood helping to drain the water off of the continents we see today. One source (see note on Genesis 7:10 in this commentary proposes the idea that the continents sank, with the rain being only a minor part of the cause of global flooding, and this article suggests land surged upward at the end of the Flood. Another source disputes the idea the land would “sink” since the rock is too light, but supports the idea that the ocean floors moved up due to the lower density of hot magma creating shallower ocean basins that pushed water up on to the land (see the articles here and here). Altogether, you get a plausible mechanism of the ground between the land and sea leveling out to allow the water to flood the land and then shifting again so the water flowed off of the new continents and back into the ocean basins, but that is all an educated guess. Regardless of the mechanism, support for belief in a global Flood comes from the comment on Genesis 7:17, here, where John Calvin comments upon Moses’ insistence that the highest hills were covered by the Flood and says it removes any room to argue that only a portion of the world was under water. In fact, in the comment on Genesis 7:19, this author points out that, far from there being a shortage of water for the Flood, instead there was too much, because Genesis says God had to close up the windows of heaven and fountains of the deep, perhaps implying that the Flood would have gotten deeper or gone on longer if He hadn’t.

It is worth pointing out that Genesis is not the only reference to the Flood in the Bible. It comes up in the New Testament as well. In Matthew 24:37-39, Jesus refers to it and in 1 Peter 3:20 and 2 Peter 2:5, Peter emphasizes that only 8 people survived. While this technically leaves room to argue that it the Flood didn’t have to be global as long as everyone lived in the same limited geographical area, reasonable estimates of the population size before the Flood make it likely that people covered most or all of the Earth by the time the Flood came, requiring that the inundation cover the whole world as well. For more on the population estimates for the world before the Flood, see here for an overview, as well as the note on Genesis 7:19, here and the note on Genesis 7:21, here which give values ranging from 4 million to 80 billion.

Melting ice caps would, perhaps, contribute to the depth of the Flood, but only a little compared to the total depth needed. According to this source, the sea level would rise 216 feet if all the ice-caps in the world were to melt. This source suggests 230 feet.

I used the radius of the Earth (here) and the total water on Earth (here) to calculate how deep the global ocean would be if the world’s surface was smooth. Using those numbers, there could be mountains 1.6 miles tall coming up from the floor of the ocean during the Flood, and they would only just touch the surface.

For the idea that the Ark had a draft of 15 cubits, half its height, see note on Genesis 7:17 here, the note on Genesis 7:17-24, here, the comment here, and Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 98). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. An alternative reason for the 15 cubit depth is given by the note on Genesis 7:20, here which says that the height of water above the hilltops was the depth required to drown even the tallest men and animals.

This article argues that the Ark could have been constructed with three keels which would’ve allowed Noah and his family to avoid use of hull supports when building the ship. In addition, it is suggested that these added keels, and other reinforcing on the top, would work to strengthen the ship against the bending forces it would face in the open ocean. I drew hull supports in the cover art for Episode 12, and mentioned them in this episode, but that is artistry rather than physics. On the face of it, the Answers in Genesis theory is plausible, though nothing precludes the use of hull supports other than the added labor of erecting them and the possible danger they posed to the hull of the Ark when the water reached the top of the hill and the ship began to float it free from them.

We don’t know the calendar Noah used, but there’s reason to suspect that the months were each 30 days long since Genesis 8:3-4 states that 150 days were exactly 5 months. If that’s the case, and the Flood started on November 9 (as speculated in an earlier show note), 40 days later would be December 18.

God told Noah in Genesis 7:4 that the rain would come down for 40 days and the story in Genesis verifies the accuracy of that statement in Genesis 7:12.

The main supernatural rain stopped after 40 days, but given the churned up state of the weather, I’d guess occasional squalls and storms still came along throughout the rest of the Flood much as storms still come on occasion today. For more, see the note on Genesis 8:2 in this commentary.

For modern cargo ships, the draft varies between half and 80% of the height of the ship (see pg. 14 here with 75% being the approximate value for the cargo the Ark was carrying, but this data probably applies to vessels with steel hulls. For wooden ships, the draft might be limited by water pressure. In any case, the fact that the Ark’s draft was a maximum of half its height (since the mountains were only covered by 15 cubits of water, half the height of the Ark), the increased freeboard (distance above the waterline to the top deck of the ship (see here) may have been because one would expect very large waves during the Flood and decreased freeboard would allow more of those waves to wash over the top of the ship. This trade-off can only go so far, though, as too much freeboard would make a ship more likely to capsize.

For waves striking the Queen Elizabeth, see pg 17, here.

For the wave recorded by the USS Ramapo, see here and here.

For the record of the wave that struck the Eagle Island lighthouse in 1861, see here.

For details on the rogue wave that hit the Draupner oil platform, see paragraph beginning, “on January 1, 1995” here and here.

For a definition of rogue waves as at least twice the height of the waves around them, as well as a further description of them going against the wind and being formed from wave addition and focusing, see here. For satellites detecting rogue waves, see here. That site also includes data from the oil rig recording 466 rogue wave encounters in 12 years rather than one in 10,000 years. For a 95 foot wave striking the Queen Elizabeth II see here. For details about the Norwegian Dawn cruise ship rogue wave, see here and here. Other rogue wave details can be found here. For the comment that scientists still don’t understand rogue waves, see here as well as other research here. For possible mechanisms of rogue wave formation, see here.

For sustained storm winds as a cause of rogue waves, see here.

The comment that the Ark would want to take the waves end-on rather than from the side, and possible structures to allowit to do that, are mentioned in this article from people who made a life-size version. We don’t know if the Ark did incorporate these features, but it may have used something to keep it oriented in the heavy seas. Pg. 52 here argues that ships try to take big waves at an angle, neither head-on or breaking on the side of the ship.

For the average wave height and chances of larger waves hitting a ship during the duration of a storm at sea, see here.

For the stormy names of the ocean latitudes, see here and here.

For details on rogue holes, see here which defines them as an inverted version of a wave, and thus about twice as deep or more than the surrounding valleys between waves. There are also some example stories of rogue holes on pg. 17, here.

For background on the “Three Sisters” phenomenon, see pg. 50 here. For the formation of a string of large waves called the “Three Sisters,” see here and here. For the reference to the use of the term “Glorious Three” in France, see pg. 51 here. For research evidence supporting the existence of “Three Sisters” waves, see here.

For comments from pilots during the Battle of Britain, see here starting with paragraph beginning, “pilots became familiar with”.

I didn’t spend much time researching the logistics of running a floating zoo. There are a lot of unknowns there including how many animals got on the Ark (it depends on how many families today’s species descended from), what types of animals are included, and whether the animals were active the whole time, hibernating, or something in-between. All I can say with some confidence is that Genesis 6:21 records God telling Noah to bring food on to the Ark for the animals as well as the humans, so there was some amount of animal tending required. In the note on Genesis 7:13-16 in one commentary, they suggested that the animals became calm and mild during their time aboard, but that is conjecture. For other sources that have spent much more time and effort looking into the number and logistics of the animals on the Ark, see here.

There are a lot of things that could’ve contributed to the dampness aboard the Ark, even if there weren’t active leaks. First, some rain or spray could possibly wash in through the vent windows toward the top of the ship. Second, people sweat and breathe out water vapor while some animals pant to cool themselves down (see here). While we can guess at the amount of water vapor the eight people might produce during a day aboard the Ark (see here), not knowing either the number of animals, the type, or whether those animals were active or in some form of hibernation, it’s difficult to guess at how much total vapor there might’ve been in the air or how much perspiration contributed. Even with those uncertainties, with a global Flood, I’d guess the ambient humidity was high which would lead to easy condensation of any moisture and thus, a damp interior to the Ark. Regarding the bilges, water probably collected in the hold of the Ark just as water does in bilges on ships today. This does not imply that the Ark was leaking, only that, in the very least, the vapor that condensed all around the ship would at some point run down to the lowest spot and form a puddle.

For John Calvin’s speculation about Noah’s anxiety when he didn’t hear from God over the course of the Flood, see note on Genesis 8:1, here.

Geologists call the earliest theorized super-continent Rodinia. Answers in Genesis discusses this too and suggest that the land mass before the Flood was probably Rodinia and not Pangaea since Pangaea already had mountains with sediment that would’ve been deposited during the Flood. In their scenario, Pangaea was a shortlived temporary super-continent that only existed during the Flood. For more, see here.

For earthquakes or eruptions on the sea floor generating tsunamis, and the fact that they build in height only where the ocean gets shallower, see here.

In an interesting parallel to the Flood and the wind that help to dry the Flood waters, John Calvin, in his notes on Genesis 8 (see here) references the wind that divided the Red Sea at the Exodus. Beyond that one aspect, the Exodus also has the feature of a rush of water drowning those who rebelled against God while God’s people were delivered and kept safe.

In Genesis 8, the story shifts from how the old world was destroyed to how the people on the Ark were safely brought into a new world. One commentary (reference below) notes a number of parallels between this part of the story and the story of creation, including the fact that the same word is used for “wind” here as “Spirit” in Genesis 1, the pattern of water, land, birds, animals, and the command to be fruitful and multiply. For some of these parallels, see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 8:1, note. Zondervan and more detailed parallels in Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 150). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

It doesn’t seem like wind, on its own, would make the Flood waters decrease, but only push them around. One commentary, in the note on Genesis 8:1, thinks that it was a hot wind that calmed the water and drove away the rain. Another commentary, in the note on Genesis 8:1, thinks it was a hot wind which helped to evaporate some of the water back into the air. If so, this super-saturation of the air might have contributed to water vapor condensing at the North and South poles and generating the ice caps we have today, but this is my speculation.

For the suggestion that the Flood waters soaked into the ground and helped fill up all the underground caverns, see the note on Genesis 8:3 here.

For the depths of oceanic trenches around the world, see the Puerto Rico Trench details here. Elsewhere, the Marianas Trench is 6.8 miles below the surface at its deepest point as mentioned here. For the height of Everest, see this article.

According to people who believe the Biblical account of a global Flood, you can find evidence for it’s accuracy in places like the Grand Canyon where rush of great amounts of water flowing off the land at the end of the Flood would’ve formed the canyon in just a brief time. For more, see here.

Geology is a hotly debated topic among people who advocate for the standard geological timeline of millions of years of deposition and erosion and those who believe Genesis is giving a literal timeline of history, and geology, properly understood, should fit into that timeline. The Grand Canyon is just one small part of that debate. For the suggestion that it was carved over the course of millions of years, see here and here. For timelines that are more in line with the history the Bible records, see here. Further discussions can be found here and here. This does not prove Genesis’ account to be accurate, but it does show the Genesis story to be plausible and not something easily dismissed.

For the rate of flow increasing the amount and size of suspended particles in a flood, see here.

For the flooding of the Guadalupe river in 2002 and the formation of the Canyon Lake Gorge, see here and here.

For a reference to speed or quick burial being important for fossils to form, see here. For examples of things being buried fast enough to preserve even soft tissues, see here and here.

There’s broad agreement on both sides of the creation-evolution debate that the Himalayas have fossils of undersea animals on them and that the mountains were once under water (see here and here or here for statements from both sides). For the long-ages perspective, however, erosion is a problem. During the millions of years since emerging from the sea, the Himalayas should have been washed away by erosion. If the mountains are still rising, balancing the erosion, one would still expect the sediments to be washed away or the layering on the mountains to be different than the surrounding land, but no such differences are in evidence. Altogether this suggests the Himalayas emerged from the water much more recently, likely pushed up as the continents settled into their new positions during the Flood. For details on the issue of long ages and erosion, see here.

I mentioned the proportions of the Ark and compared it to modern ship design in Episode 11. See the show notes there for more details about the sea-worthiness of the Ark.

For details from the Babylonian Flood legend, see pg. 236 here which records the length, height, width, and number of rooms in the ship. For the it taking a week to build the Babylonian ark see pg. 105 here that says it was done on the seventh day (though the translation by Kovacs (referenced below) translates that as “sunset” from what I can tell). The Kovacs book does note about two weeks (from what I understand) for the the flood to come and go with one week of rain and another of floating afterward on pgs. 97-102 Kovacs, Maureen Gallery (1989) The Epic of Gilgamesh (pg. 99) Stanford University Press. Stanford, California. The translation on pg. 99 says six decks but seven levels. In modern terms, I assume this means seven decks.

For the Greek Flood legend of Deucalion, it mentions that the whole world was flooded (”a sea without a shore”), and that only one man and one woman survived (see here. Future humans came from rocks thrown on the ground (see here) and animals arose from the Earth all on their own (see here.

For the Peruvian Flood legend, see paragraph in chapter 2 beginning with, “More intriguing are the Flood stories” in Bauer, Susan Wise. The History of the Ancient World: From the Earliest Accounts to the Fall of Rome . W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

The idea that the story of the Flood in Genesis sounds like a ships’ log comes from the note on Genesis 7:17-19 here. The same author also points out that the style of language is very old and suggests the story was written down long before Moses (see note on Genesis 6:17, here). It’s also interesting to note the dates. The story of the Flood as recorded in Genesis lists the dates when the Flood started as well as at a number of other points. This feature supports the belief that it is a factual rather than a fictitious account, as mentioned by See Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 97). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. In the literary style of the ancient Middle East it was common to round-off specifics with respect to timelines and dates, but the Old Testament does much less of this compared to other sources from the area. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 182). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the length of the Flood, some authors add the 40 days of rain and the 150 days of the Flood together to get a length of 190 days (see the notes on Genesis 7:24 here and here), but the most likely timeline makes the 40 days of rain part of the total 150 days of the Flood. That is the idea suggested in the note on Genesis 7:24, here and later here as well as the notes on Genesis 8, here. This source, in the note on Genesis 7:24, gives a summary of different timelines, but concludes that having the 40 days as part of the 150 is most likely which agrees with the most straight-forward reading of Genesis 7:11 and Genesis 8:3-4 which places the Ark landing on Ararat 5 months after the start of the Flood, or 150 days, assuming 30 day months.

For the grounding and break up of the Crimson Polaris in Japan in 2021, see the articles here and here.

For evidence that, even though the Ark had grounded out, it was still surrounded by water, note that Genesis 8:4-5 states that the Ark grounded out in the middle of the seventh month, but the tops of the mountains couldn’t be seen until the beginning of the tenth month, something like 10 weeks later.

For the plate tectonics of the Himalayas and Andes, see here for the Himalayas and here for the Andes.

It’s speculation to say that Noah didn’t know where he was. If the axis of the Earth was at the same tilt before and after the Flood, he may have been able to determine his longitude and latitude from the stars, if there wasn’t cloud cover, but that would’ve given him only the most general information about seasons and equinoxes. Regarding his location relative to geography, he had no clues other than the mountain peaks that were gradually appearing.

The search for the Ark on the mountains of Ararat is one of the ongoing mysteries of Bible history. Genesis 8:4 says the Ark landed on the “mountains of Ararat.” This refers to a geographic region according to Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 70). Review and Herald Publishing Association. Still, it was only later, after the Ark grounded on the mountains, that the tops of the mountains could be seen, perhaps offering the idea that the Ark landed on the highest peak in the chain. At the moment, that highest peak is mount Ararat in Turkey near where Turkey, Armenia, and Iran border one another (see here). In the past, people have thought this the most likely landing place for the Ark. (see the note on Genesis 8:4 here. Further support for the idea that this is the place the Ark came to rest comes from Persian history as they call the place “Kuh-i-nuh” or “Noah’s mountain” according to Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. Both Jerome and Josephus referred to fragments of the Ark existing in their time, but considering that we don’t have any physical evidence of the Ark on Mount Ararat (see here) these records should perhaps be taken with a grain fo salt. Recent research complicates this conclusion, however, since it suggests that the Ararat volcano formed after the Flood, so at the time the Ark grounded out, the tallest of the “mountains of Ararat” would have been some other peak that is now unknown (see here. Taken together, we don’t know where the Ark is, or if it even exists. It may still be on some mountain near Armenia, or it may not. It may have fallen apart over time.

Some scholars dispute that the Ararat chain has anything to do with the landing place of the ark. The note on Genesis 8:4 in this commentary suggests that a mountain closer to Mesopotamia makes more sense because it’s closer to the starting place of the Ark, but that theory has a few flaws. First it assumes that the Ark, in five months, wouldn’t float all the way to Ararat, second it assumes the ground under the Ark didn’t move, and third it assumes the Ark launched from the area of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers found on maps today. In fairness, that particular commentary was written in the 1800s, but each of those points no longer stands up to scrutiny. In the time since that theory was put forward, the Kon-Tiki ship floated 4,300 miles in 101 days (see here), making the distance a moot point. In addition, the theory of plate tectonics was proposed and largely accepted by geoligists, opening up the possibility that the land was moving underneath the Ark as well as the Ark moving (see here). As such, it’s entirely possible the Ark landed on mount Ararat either by drifting there from its starting place (which could be any spot in the globe), by the land drifting underneath it, or some combination of both things moving. Combine that with the fact that the geography of the world today is probably very different than the geography of the world Noah knew before the Flood, and any arguments about the distance the Ark would’ve had to travel during the Flood are baseless.

For Noah’s use of a raven, see the note on Genesis 8:7, here and here. According to the notes on Genesis 8:3 and 8:7 here the phrase used to describe the decreasing water is very nearly the same as the phrase used to describe the flight of the raven when it went out from the Ark. From the way Genesis talks about the raven, it’s unclear what it did when it left the Ark. It may not have returned to the Ark, or, given it’s flying about, it may not have given Noah the information he hoped. See summary in the note on Genesis 8:6, here. Whatever the reasons, Noah switched to a dove as the next scout.

The timeline for releasing the raven and the doves is somewhat ambiguous since we don’t know for certain the gap between the sending out of the raven and the first time Noah released a dove out of the Ark.. The most likely timelines are that he released the dove right after the raven, perhaps the same day after the raven didn’t return with the information Noah looked for, or, as with the gap between releasing the dove the first time and releasing it the second time, Noah waited seven days (see Genesis 8:10. Either timeline fits. If Noah looked out of the Ark and saw the mountains on the first day of the tenth month (10.1), and then waited 40 days to release the raven, that would be the tenth day of the eleventh month (11.10). If he released the raven that day, the dove the same day, and then waited 7 (11.17) days to release it again, and 7 more (11.24) to release it the final time, that would leave a final seven day gap to reach the first day of the first month of the next year (1.1), when Genesis 8:13 says Noah removed the covering from the Ark. On the other hand, if Noah waited seven days between releasing the raven and releasing the dove, that shifts all the following events by a week and suggests that Noah released the dove for the final time on the same day he removed the covering from the Ark.

The word we use today for “pigeon” refers to larger birds while “dove” refers to smaller ones, but both words are possible translations of the term used in the Bible to refer to this type of bird according to this source as well as Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 293). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For details about the distance an speed of a carrier pigeon, recorded in a book published in 1870, see pgs. 25-29 here. More recent measurements are found on pg. 5 here while pg. 8 at that source claims that one pigeon went 110 miles an hour for several hours. That same source also makes mention of how the birds’ performance has changed with selective breeding since ancient times on pg. 185.

Scholars connect repetition of releasing birds on seven day cycles to religious practice and, therefore, the Sabbath. If so, it constitutes further evidence that the Law of God, spelled out in Exodus 20, was not a new idea but was known in at least the time of Noah, and likely from the days of creation when God first established the Sabbath. For more, see note on Genesis 8:12, here.

The return of the dove with an olive leaf is the origin of our modern idea that an olive branch symbolizes peace (see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 8:11, note. Zondervan and Horn, S. H. (1979). In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit took the form of a dove when it descended on Jesus at His baptism (see John 1:29-34). Later, before going back to heaven, Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as a comforter (see John 14:15-17), something that would also have been true of this dove who returned to the Ark with an olive branch since it brought comfort in the form of evidence that there was still life on Earth. For more, see the note on Genesis 8:6, here.

The note on Genesis 8:6, here, mentions that olives will sprout even when under water. Another commentary, in the note on Genesis 8:11, says that the word “leaf” in this verse refers to a “tender branch” and that olive trees will not only stand, but thrive under the water. At the same time, while olive trees are hardy and sprout nicely, they don’t grow high in the mountains, so this sort of leaf could have given Noah evidence that the water had drained from the lower valleys as well. For more, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7685-7687). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

According to the note on Genesis 8:11, here, there’s no parallel in the Babylonian flood story to the return of the dove with the olive branch found in Genesis, and, along with other factors, suggests that the focus of the Babylonian story isn’t on reconciliation with God while the Genesis story has that as it’s main point, beginning here and culminating in Genesis 8:20-22.

On the note for Genesis 8:13, here, it suggests that the ground was dry on that first day of the new year, but not so dry as to handle walking on it. Later, a different word is used in Genesis 8:14 for “dry,” perhaps suggesting more water had soaked in or evaporated from the ground by that point.

Besides John Calvin’s reference earlier to God’s silence during the Flood, see also Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pgs. 153-154). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

You can total up the length of the Flood a number of ways, but perhaps the simplest is by just using years. Genesis 7:11 says that the Flood began on the 17th day of the second month (2.17). Later, in Genesis 8:14-16 it says Noah left the Ark more than a year later, giving the date as the twenty-seventh day of the second month (2.27). For us today, that would be about 375 days since the start of the Flood, or 382 since Noah and his family boarded the Ark and God closed the door, but that assumes they used 365 day years. Instead, based on the comment that the Flood started on the seventeenth day of the second month, and that, 150 days later, the Ark grounded out on the seventeenth day of the seventh month (see Genesis 8:3-4, Noah apparently used 30 day months. If that’s the case, Noah and his family were on the Ark a total of 377 days including a week before the rain started followed by 370 days until God told them to disembark. For an explanation of the week before the Flood, when Noah and his family boarded the Ark, see a detailed show note on Episode 12.

If you want to see images of the trunks of huge trees that were, perhaps, destroyed during the Flood and whose stumps are now petrified and preserved as stone, see here. The size of these trunks, snapped off, give you some idea of both what the world used to be, and how enormous the Flood was.

Noah and his family may have been afraid during the Flood, but then again, perhaps not. For their whole lives they lived as outcasts in a society that hated God, and, by extension, probably hated them as well. Going into the Ark would’ve offered relief from that society. Perhaps some support for this perspective comes from the phrase “windows of heaven” used in Genesis 7:11. In Englishman’s concordance the word used for windows in “windows of heaven” comes up 9 times in the Bible. Twice the phrase refers to the Flood (see Genesis 7:11 and Genesis 8:2). In one case it refers to judgment and uses Flood-like imagery (see Isaiah 24:18-20). In two instances it is a general reference to windows (see Ecclesiastes 12:3 and Hosea 13:3). In one case it is used with reference to a dove’s nest or roost (see Isaiah 60:8). In 2 Kings and Malachi, however, windows in heaven refers to blessings (see 2 Kings 7:2 and 2 Kings 7:19 and Malachi 3:10). Dismissing the three examples where the word for “windows” is used in a general sense, and looking at only the times when “windows of heaven” is the focus, the imagery either refers to the Flood, judgment, or the idea of blessings being poured out. While this doesn’t say that Noah saw the windows of heaven as a blessing, it suggests that the people later in history remembered those windows as something positive, perhaps a source of relief and life for those to trusted in God and did what He commanded them to do.

In the record of the Flood, God judged the world but preserved His followers. The same promises come up later in the Bible about our own future. Acts 17:30-31 says the world will be judged, and Romans 8:1 says that those who follow Christ will not be condemned.

The Bible empahsizes God’s reliability. Malachi 3:6 and Hebrews 13:8 emphasize that God does not change. Furthermore, the idea of safety in a storm comes up in the New Testament as well in Mark 4:35-41 where Jesus calms a storm and asks His disciples why they were afraid. Finally, as one of many promises we can still rely on today, Jesus states in John 16:33 that the world would bring trouble, but tells us to take heart, for He has overcome the world. Combining God’s care for us with the fact that He doesn’t change reinforces the conclusion that we have nothing to fear in any of today’s storms.

For commentaries that note that Noah waited to leave the Ark until God said it was time, see the note on Genesis 8:15, here and here as well as John Calvin’s comment on Genesis 8 (see here) where he points out Noah’s continued faithfulness to God.

For Noah’s altar as the first reference to an altar in the Bible, see the note on Genesis 8:20 here. This idea is confirmed in the note on Genesis 8:20, here which also goes on to state its belief that there were other, un-mentioned, altars earlier in history for the sacrifices of Cain and Abel. For altars to be made of rough stones, see Exodus 20:24-25. In addition, according to the note on Genesis 8:20, here the reference to Noah building an ‘altar’ is literally ‘a high place’. Noah was likely high on a mountain for this sacrifice, as that is where the Ark came to rest. Later on in the Bible, high places were common locations for altars, though often used for idols rather than the worship of God. For more see 1 Samuel 9 where Samuel goes up to a high place and 1 Kings 11:7 for an example of a high place used for idols. See also the note on Genesis 8:20, here which suggests that an altars was usually a raised structure or mound made of earth and stones.

The note on Genesis 8:20, here and here, suggests Noah sacrificed the “seventh” of all the clean animals, though this depends on whether 7 or 14 were taken aboard at the start of the Flood (see note on Episode 12). We don’t know whether these animals reproduced on the Ark, but if they did not, the sacrificing of a seventh of all the clean animals would represent a significant sacrifice as mentioned in the note Genesis 8:20, here.

For the comment that Noah’s first act after leaving the Ark was to re-establish the worship of God, see the note on Genesis 8:20 in this commentary.

For Noah giving the offering of his own free will, see the note on Genesis 8:20, here. Another commentary pointed out that the word used to refer to Noah’s sacrifice is the word you’d use for a request to be forgiven or an offering of thanks. For more see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 156). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

At the beginning of God’s promise to never again curse or dishonor the ground as He had done with the Flood He says, “for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.” (see Genesis 8:21). This is confusing considering the evil of men’s hearts was the reason for the Flood in the first place (see Genesis 6:5-7). One commentary suggested that Noah’s sacrifice brought about this change (see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 101). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.). Another commentary believed that the first reference was the fact that man’s imagination led into sinful acts, while the second reference is talking only about the fact that sinfulness is ingrained in humans and they tend toward constant sinfulness, but, presumably, not in the whole-hearted way of the people who lived before the Flood (see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 261). Review and Herald Publishing Association.). See also the note on Genesis 8:21, here.

Some scholars, see here and here, in their notes on Genesis 8:22, suggest that God’s promise that day and night and seedtime and harvest would continue as long as the Earth would last suggests that during the storm, the people on board probably couldn’t tell if it was day or night. Interestingly enough, that detail also shows up in the Babylonian flood story (quote here) that says the world was completely dark during the flood.

For the idea that Noah’s view of the world was limited by fog and mist, see the note on Genesis 8:4, here