Episode 18: Grandfathers of History, part 2
As people moved further and further away from Babel… they still talked about where they came from.
All the quotes from the Bible for the main story were were taken from the English Standard Version (see ESV copyright here) or the New King James Version. For the other sources, including commentaries, websites, or articles, you can find links and references in the show notes below in the order they appeared. If you have any questions, there’s a link to contact me at the bottom of the page.
Show notes:
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). 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), 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 here.
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 pr 454 here. For summaries of Homer’s poems see starting pg. 568 for the Illiad and pgs. 674-675 for the Odyssey. For a summary of the Aeneid, see show now below. For Virgil telling of the destruction of Troy and the things that happened after, see summary here and a translation of Virgil starting at book 2 here.
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 here. That record was written by Dionysius of Halicarnassus a Roman historian who wrote a history of Rome around the same time as Virgil wrote the Aeneid.
For the Aeneid being written during the early days of the Roman empire, see reference on pg. 391 here to when Virgil lived and reference on pg. 888 here to the reign of Augustus, the first Roman emperor.
It’s reasonable to suggest that Virgil was making up the story of Aeneas, and the note on pg. 392 here points out that Virgil’s main sources for the Aeneid were Homer’s Illiad and Odyssey, though it also says that Virgil used other sources as well. For examples of the story of Aeneas or ancestors from Troy predating Virgil, see show note below.
As evidence that the Aeneid shouldn’t be taken as history, it’s worth noting that Aeneas’ adventure at Carthage would’ve been tricky if Aeneas traveled from Troy before Carthage was founded as suggested by Editor’s note 132 here or in the footnotes on pgs. 160-161 here.
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 here.
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 chronicle here and pg. 30 of Roberts’ translation here. For a discussion of sources for early British history and their reliability, see earlier show note.
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 pg. 67-73 here. 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.
Update: Revised note on 2/26/2023 regarding Otus and Ephialtes to note that their goal in piling up mountains to reach heaven was not to overthrow it, but to attempt to marry goddesses. Update: Some show notes modified on 6/16/2023 and 6/18/2023 and a missing link added on 9/20/2023.