Flood Legends (10 page)

The second thread involves the use of a "litmus test" — the sending out of animals to "test" for dry land. In the Babylonian and Hebrew versions, the heroes use birds. In the West (North and South America), however, completely different animals are used, but they
serve the same function
.

The migration of these threads is unusual and impressive, and I believe we can explain this phenomenon with three
possible
scenarios. The first scenario is that the central version — either the
actual event itself
or a
very near relative
— is one of the Middle-Eastern versions. From there, then, the diaspora carried the tale until the different stories had evolved into the extreme versions found at either end of the spectrum.

If, for example, the use of birds, or the "bird" thread, were followed from the Mesopotamian versions, we would see something to this effect: first, birds are being used to test for dry land (Hebrew/Babylonian); second, a cock, specifically, is being used to test for dry land (Burmese); third, a cock crows from
outside
the vessel sometime after the Flood, alerting the people to the fact that the land is dry (Chinese). If we were to follow the "litmus test" thread, it might have developed something like this: first, the hero used birds to test for dry land (Hebrew/Babylonian); second, the hero used a muskrat and an otter to test for dry land, then, once the land appeared, used a fox to determine when the land was habitable (Hareskin); third, the hero used
just
an otter to test for land, then used a more regionally appropriate
reindeer
to determine when the land was habitable (Montagnais). This is only one possible scenario.

The next scenario involves the source version being somewhere in the Americas. The story would have then spread north and west into Russia and Asia. This spread would have evolved from a version where the hero used different kinds of animals to test the waters, to a version where the hero used different
birds
to test the waters (Genesis and Gilgamesh). Eventually, the idea of "testing" the waters disappears, but the
bird thread remains
as the story spreads south into Asia.

The last scenario would, in truth, simply reverse the order. We might start with birds "announcing" or (in the Rotti version) "creating" dry land. That may evolve into a story where the bird is used to "test" the dry land, which may then evolve into other assorted animals "testing" the land.

The threads are common enough to be skeptical about the "independent evolution" of each version. However, the changes can easily be traced through telephone mythology. Remember, I am not necessarily commenting on how the story
definitely
changed, but merely how the story
possibly
changed.

In several brief glimpses, we have looked at the hero, the cargo, the crew, the final resting places of the vessels, and the use of animals after the Flood. Each version is remarkably similar to the other versions. More telling, however, is that each version has a
direct parallel
to another version. That parallel often occurs between versions that are separated by vast geographic distances, as is the case with the crew members in the Sanskrit and Hebrew text. If each of these versions was invented independently of each other, can we explain these parallels? We cannot do so easily. However, if each version was passed down from another version — and, ultimately, from the true version — would we be able to explain those parallels? We could do
that
quite easily.

Still, the argument is that the flood legends all tell of local disasters. To be certain, many of them
may be
local flood legends. But can we safely take that stance with
every
version? The next chapter explores that.

Chapter 10

Local Versus Global

The Earth was shaken to its foundations. The sky sank lower toward the north. The sun, moon, and stars changed their motions. The Earth fell to pieces and the waters in its bosom rushed upward with violence and overflowed the Earth. Man had rebelled against the high gods, and the system of the Universe was in disorder. The planets altered their courses, and the grand harmony of the Universe and nature was disturbed.

— The Ch'in-ting-ku-chin-t'su-shu-shi-ch'eng, China

The last element I wish to discuss is more a critique of the "local flood" arguments, using the literature as a guide. The very language of the myths themselves implies that the floods were not local but did in fact cover the earth. In the
Torah
, God informs Noah that He is about to "destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is breath of life," and that, when the waters come, they swell "fifteen cubits higher" than the "highest mountain." Assuming Everest was at its current height, the water in the
Torah
would have had a depth of 29,050 feet. In the
Mahābhārata
, Brahma (the Fish) informs Manu that the "dissolution of all moving and unmoving things of earth is near," and that, when the Deluge came, "all was sea." These myths are full of interesting contradictions, if we are to believe they refer only to local floods.

The first contradiction is the fact that water seeks its own level, and would therefore not cover mountains if only a valley were filled. To put it another way, if the water were high enough to cover the tallest mountains, then we would expect — indeed, it would be
necessary
— for the Flood to be more than local. Water cannot cover the highest point on earth in one section, and then drop below that level in another section. That is impossible. It would, in fact, be necessary for the Flood to reach a global scale. We read in the Sanskrit text that only Manu, the Ŗsis, and the Fish can be seen in the "disordered world," indicating that everything else was covered with water. The Kariña account reports, "You could no longer see the tops of even the tallest trees." Had the Flood, in each of these cultures, been merely local, there would have been hills, acting like the edge of a soup bowl, visible just above the waterline and holding the water in place.

The second contradiction in the stories — if we are to believe they refer to local floods — is that, had the Flood only been local and mountains and trees exposed, then birds, animals, and even people could have moved to safer areas. Logically following that, it would have been unnecessary to either save the creatures (as in Genesis) or re-create them (as in the
Mahābhārata
); these actions would be necessary only if the destruction of life were
total.

Lastly, in terms of linguistic patterns, in the Hebrew, the word used for Flood is
mabbool
(or, also,
mabbul
), whose Greek equivalent would be
kataklusmos
. This is where we get our word "cataclysm." Neither
mabbool
nor
kataklusmos
is typical for "flood," but imply a more catastrophic, earth-altering event. Some models picture the water being hot, even boiling, as it breaks from the earth's crust. Others have a canopy of water collapsing onto the earth in a sudden, violent downpour (though the so-called canopy model is no longer considered a credible theory). Either event would have been more than a mere flood. Both events describe tremendous catastrophes.

This idea of a catastrophic, earth-altering event is not just found in Genesis. The Icelandic epic, Edda, describes the coming of the Flood this way:

Mountains dash together . . .

And heaven is split in two.

The sun grows dead —

The earth sinks into the sea.

The bright stars vanish.

Fires rage and raise their flames

As high as heaven.
¹

A tribe of people from Assam, known as the Lushais, tell that prior to the Flood, the earth was one flat plain, but that the water, when it came, carved out the valleys and mountains that we see today. Gaster tells of a New Zealand people group that landed on the earth after the Flood and discovered, to their dismay, that "all was changed." He retells the story in this way: "The earth was cracked and fissured in some places, and in others it had been turned upside down and confounded by reason of the Flood. And not one soul was left alive in the world."
²
In the Imperial Chinese work
Ch'in-ting-ku-chin-t'su-shu-shi-ch'eng
, the Deluge is described as "[shaking] the Earth …to its foundations," and that "the sky sank lower toward the north" while "the Earth fell to pieces and the water in its bosom rushed upward with violence."
³

In the
Mahābhārata
, the language
distinctly
states "all ends in
violent
water" (emphasis added). To further drive this home, the Fish reminds Manu that all that is "mobile" and "immobile" will be destroyed — a literary technique that implies that
everything on earth
will perish in this deluge. Brahma does not indicate that all of India will perish, nor does the tale indicate that Manu must merely re-create a village. Rather, Brahma tells Manu that everything on
earth
will be destroyed, both the animate and inanimate, and Manu must re-create
everything
after the Flood. Furthermore, in the Hebrew text, the survivors remained in the ark for 53 weeks, and in the Sanskrit, it was several years (imagine spending
years
on a boat, with nothing to eat but seeds!). In a local flood, dry land would have been just beyond the horizon, easily reached in a small amount of time. Because many mythologists and historians have recognized this fact — that the cultures who wrote the stories clearly saw the catastrophes as global floods — the world of academia has tended to side with a newer interpretation of the myths. They argue that the cultures were simply unable to tell the difference between "local" and "global," interpreting what amounts to merely a local flood as something far more destructive.

A recent book by William Ryan and Walter Pitman
⁴
suggests that the Flood can
easily
be identified as a local, but still catastrophic, flood. The authors refer to the clear presence of ruins at the bottom of the Black Sea. The area shows evidence of once being a dry valley, which was later flooded when rising sea levels poured through the Bosporous Strait, creating what is now the Black Sea. They believe that groups of families living on the far side of the valley were able to see the water levels rising and escape in rapidly constructed boats. Ryan and Pitman theorize that
this
event was the basis for the global flood stories of Genesis and the Gilgamesh epic. However, their hypothesis fails to explain how cultures from
other parts of the world
also came up with similar stories. In addition, it fails to explain the very language of the stories, which, as we have seen, does
not
indicate the Flood was merely local. On an interesting side note, there is a Turkish legend that Alexander the Great, out of anger at a Turkish queen, dug a trench into the Bosporous, which then flooded, creating the strait that now exists there (perhaps, then, Ryan's and Pitman's very
interpretation
of the formation of the Black Sea needs some revisiting, as well). Even so, the argument still persists that these various cultures around the world simply did not know the difference between "local" and "global."

Few people who delve into this realm of Deluge mythology even note differences between local and global flood myths. For example, Gaster, in his chapter on the Deluge, lists several cultures that have what he refers to as "Global Deluge Myths," but which clearly refer to
local
floods.

An old legend in Washington State, popular among the Native American tribes that used to settle there, tells of an old man who escaped a flood in "all the country" by seeking refuge in the mountains.
⁵
Nowhere does the story suggest that the Flood was global but gives every indication that it was a local event. In Tierra del Fuego, they claim that all but a single high mountain was submerged, and the survivors were those who had made it to the mountain.
⁶
These would be clear examples of
local
flood stories, because higher ground was available. The
global
versions indicate just the opposite: that
nothing
remained until the waters receded.

Furthermore, many ancient cultures that have a global deluge myth also carry myths of local floods within their literature. In a later passage in Genesis we read: "Now, when King Amraphel of Shinar, King Arioch of Ellasar, King Chedorlaomer of Elam, and King Tidal of Goiim made war on King Bera of Sodom, King Birsha of Gomorrah, King Shinab of Admah, King Shemeber of Zeboiim, and the King of Bela, which is Zoar, all the latter joined forces
at the Valley of Siddim, now the Dead Sea.
"
⁷
At the time of the composition of the text, the author had already written about the Flood but was now telling of a valley that had been flooded so completely that it had acquired a new name: "Dead Sea." Would Moses have recognized the difference between
local
and
global
? Would he have known that a flood that covered the earth would be more catastrophic than a flood that filled a valley? He certainly wrote about them differently. Without being dogmatic, the compiler of Genesis truly appeared to know the difference between the two types of floods.

The
Mahābhārata
tells, in an earlier chapter of Book III, how Krishna "will sink Dvārakā in the ocean."
⁸
Dvārakā was — and still is — a city in Western India. About 20 years ago, however, the ruins of an ancient city were discovered underwater a few miles off the coast of present-day Dvārakā, indicating that the city had, in fact, been flooded. Most importantly, however, the text states that the city,
and only the city
, would be flooded. Again, inclusion of a clear story of a local flood within the text makes it quite obvious that the culture could tell the difference between a local flood and a global deluge.