Flood Legends (11 page)

The Egyptians, who thrived on the annual flooding of the Nile, also have a global deluge story. The Greeks, whose hero Deucalion survives a global deluge, also tell of the "Flood of Arcadia," which drove King Dardanos and his subjects out of the lowlands for many years, forcing them to take refuge in the mountains.
⁹
Again, we see two different stories: in one version, building a ship for survival is
necessary
; in the other, escape to higher ground is possible.

When looking at the literature itself, can we honestly say that the stories refer to local floods? Not without performing great feats of mental gymnastics. Plus, to assume these cultures could not tell a difference between global and local is to assume
vast ignorance
on their part. We can hardly look back on the ancient Greeks, or the Babylonians, or the Egyptians, and claim that they were ignorant cultures. And yet from
almost every major culture
— even the "highly advanced" ones, such as the Greeks, Babylonians, and Egyptians — we find a story of a global deluge.

While scholars insist that, throughout the world, cultures evolved separately and formed their own unique versions of a global deluge based on flooding rivers, tidal waves, and so forth, there is a large body of evidence, within most cultural literature, to suggest otherwise. Common sense tells us that the literature itself points to a global flood. If, as many believe, these deluge myths are products of independent imaginations, how
do
we account for the eerily similar details amongst the versions?

We cannot.

On the other hand, if these various myths all have a common source, can we account for the differences?

We certainly can.

The differences in the myths arise, not because each myth was "invented" independently of other myths, but because the stories all share a common origin and have been filtered through an international, multicultural game of "telephone." The similarities arise because the stories all share a common origin. From a literary standpoint, we cannot claim anything less.

Endnotes

. Charles Berlitz,
Lost Ship of Noah: In Search of the Ark at Ararat
(New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1987), p. 121.

. Theodore Gaster,
Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament
(New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1969)), p. 111.

. Berlitz,
Lost Ship of Noah
, p. 126.

. William Ryan and Walter Pitman,
Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event That Changed History
(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998).

. Gaster,
Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament,
p. 119.

. Ibid., p. 128.

. Gen. 14:1–3,
Tanakh
(Jewish Publications Society, Philadelphia, PA), emphasis added.

.
Mahābhārata
, III:12/35.

. Gaster,
Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament,
p. 84–85, 89.

Chapter 11

Truth or Opinion?

This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high

(Gen. 6:15).

We've looked at the literature in great detail. We've looked at different versions. We've seen that the numerous versions all have enough differences to make them unique to their cultures. We've also seen enough similarities to be wary of the "independent evolution" theory of the stories. We've seen how a new method of interpretation — telephone mythology — can explain many of the similarities
and
differences.

Still, is theory enough? We can find parallels in the beliefs of many ancient cultures, but does that necessarily mean that the beliefs are accurate? For example, in Greek mythology, the god Zeus uses lightning bolts as weapons, hurling them to earth at will. In Hindu mythology, it is the sky-god Indra who uses lightning as a weapon. Here we have a
very strong
parallel, but does the parallel guarantee accuracy? Not in this particular case, because we know how lightning forms.

Could all of this theorizing that we have done be for naught, then? Can we find, not a "theoretical flood," but the actual, historically accurate version? Is there an accurate version, or is it, as some say, simply a matter of opinion? Can
all
opinions be right, or is there such a thing as truth?

Quid est Veritas?

Let's start there. First and foremost, we need to differentiate between fact and opinion. Opinions are subjective. That means that there is no real way to measure or confirm a statement of opinion, and, therefore, contradictory opinions can both be valid. For example, if you were to claim, "Apples taste better than oranges," I may agree with you — or I may disagree with you — but you are neither right nor wrong. There is no way to measure "taste," because it is a matter of opinion; there is not one universal truth about the taste of apples versus the taste of oranges. Therefore, the statement "apples taste better than oranges" is a subjective statement, because it is
subject
to your opinion.

An objective statement deals with a measurable and viable truth (or a measurable and viable
object
). We can usually evaluate an objective statement with quantitative data. If I said that a six-foot-tall person is taller than a five-foot-tall person, that would be an objective statement. It is not a matter of opinion but can be either verified or falsified because we can measure the difference between six feet and five feet and see that, in fact, my statement is
true
.

Likewise, if I said, "Italy is in the United States," we can test the accuracy of that statement. Italy, as it turns out, is on a map, as is the United States. All one would have to do is look at a map of the world to determine whether my statement were true or not. Because Italy is in Europe and not the United Sates, my assertion cannot be called an opinion because it is
verifiably false
. Neither of these are statements of opinions, but statements of fact. And because fact involves existing truth, it is either right or wrong. My first statement about the person's height was correct. My second statement about Italy was
incorrect
.

Opinions, because they are not measurable, can contradict each other and still be viable opinions. Facts cannot be both contradictory and still accurate. Italy cannot be in both Europe and the United States. Opinions deal with
personal taste
. Facts deal with
historicity
. Opinions can change, but no matter how strongly I may feel about them, they can never be "true." The moment they become "true" or "false" they become
facts
. Statements of fact, on the other hand, are either true or false, regardless of how seriously I may feel about the subject. I may feel, very deeply, that Italy is in the United States, but I would be very deeply wrong.

What happens if we are dealing with a truth that cannot be measured? What happens when we are dealing with a truth about a historical event from the past, an event that we cannot witness today? Can it still be fact? Yes, because fact is fact, regardless of how we feel about it. A global flood either happened, or it did not. It is either a historical fact or a fictional blunder and
cannot be
a matter of opinion. Likewise, if the Flood happened, it
must have happened a certain way
. The "true" way is not a matter of opinion. For example, the rain either lasted for 40 days and nights, or it didn't. That means that either the Genesis version is accurate, or it is not. Since we have every reason to believe in the Flood — from all of the numerous recorded accounts — and since different versions of the Flood contradict each other, they cannot all be accurate. We cannot assert that the Flood vessel had only two people on board and at the same time claim that it had eight people on board. It
did
have a certain number on board, but we cannot claim that every version is accurate on this point.
At least one of them must be correct, and all others wrong
. So it seems as if we now have the difficult task of determining, if possible, which version is accurate.

Can we do that? After all, we weren't there when it happened, so how do
we
know which version is accurate? In this case, because the event is no longer completely verifiable, we have to use a mixture of what we
do
know with some pure, good old-fashioned logic. In other words, we may not be able to
prove
one version over another, but we can
support
one version over another
beyond reasonable doubt
. We do know that archaeology and anthropology have revealed some interesting evidence for the beginnings of civilization, so the first place to start may be looking at the general, historical flow of civilization.

If the diaspora happened, then we would expect to find the center of it — the "Tower of Babel," so to speak — at the birthplace of civilization. The so-called Cradle of Civilization has long been considered to be in the ancient Mesopotamian region, or the modern-day Middle East.
¹
While most anthropologists claim that this is where civilization started, I submit that, during a global deluge, all prior evidence of civilization would more than likely have been erased. Therefore, what we consider to be the place where civilization
started
may in fact be the place where civilization
restarted
; in other words, where the survivors of the Deluge began to rebuild. If civilization restarted there after the Deluge, there is a
very good
chance that the Middle East is, therefore, the source of the diaspora. So a good starting point would probably involve a closer look at the Mesopotamian versions of the Flood.

The Cradle of Civilization

The belief has long been held that the Babylonian
Epic of Gilgamesh
is the earliest version of the Flood myth known, and that it more than likely influenced the writing of the Genesis version. So let's start there. Could the
Epic of Gilgamesh
be the original version of the Flood?

It certainly is
older
than the Genesis version. The original cuneiform tablets, translated by George Smith in the early 1870s, are believed to be
at least
3,700 years old (compared to Moses' manuscripts, written about 3,400 years ago). While it has been argued that Moses merely compiled older, oral legends for his work, the
hard data
remains that the Gilgamesh tablets are in fact more ancient than the Hebrew manuscripts. However, there are a few reasons to suspect that the Babylonian version was
passed down
to the Babylonians from an original — probably oral — source.

The first is the immortality of the hero and his wife. Now, I am not suggesting that divine beings should not be able to bestow immortality on people …not at all. It seems realistic that they should be able to bend the laws of nature. However, if these people
were
truly immortal, then we would expect to see them around today. The simple fact
is
that we do not. I have not been able to locate any Utnapishtim who survived the global Deluge, nor have I seen
any record
of this hero alive today. There simply seems to be no Utnapishtim. Right there, we have a
serious historical contradiction
in the literature.
Is
it possible that Utnapishtim is still alive somewhere in the Middle East, hiding out with his wife? Because of the severe apparent lack of evidence of the Flood hero today, I can say, with sureness and confidence, that the Babylonian version is inaccurate on this point.

The second problem that arises in the text is the
size
of the craft. The vessel appears to be a perfect cube, measuring 30 cubits on each side. Because a cubit is roughly 1'4", that means the vessel has only some 64,000 cubic feet of space. Utnapishtim is instructed to bring a pair of every living thing, along with his family and provisions. That, simply, is not enough space, particularly when contrasted with the Genesis vessel's nearly 1.1 million cubic feet of space.

Genesis tells us that the ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits tall. That converts to roughly 400 feet by 60 feet by 40 feet. Noah is instructed to build three levels, giving him a total of 79,200 square feet of usable floor space. Each level would have been some 13 feet tall, allowing plenty of room for stacking provisions, cages, and so forth. Even if Utnapishtim's vessel also had three levels, that would have allowed only 4,800 square feet of usable floor space, or about five percent of the space in the Genesis vessel.

John Woodmorappe, author of
Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study
, actually breaks down the various details of the story — including the number of animals possibly on the ark (he estimates approximately 16,000 animals on board
²
) — looking at it from a purely statistical standpoint. His argument, though it has several critics, is extremely thorough and well researched. Without being able to prove the Genesis account (he was not there, either), he goes a long way toward lending it credibility.