Episode 20: Grandfathers of History, part 4
Southeast of Babel lay an ocean. Along its shores are stories of a common past.
All the quotes from the Bible for the main story were were taken from the English Standard Version (see ESV copyright here) or the New King James Version. For the other sources, including commentaries, websites, or articles, you can find links and references in the show notes below in the order they appeared. If you have any questions, there’s a link to contact me at the bottom of the page.
Show notes:
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 here the result of a backlash against the pride of Hindu priests. Jainism supposedly started around 700 BC, but according to pg. 220 here, the writings of Jainism were still being modified until the 400s AD.
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 here. The fire-god is known as Agni and is also said to “mystically” be the gods Varuna, Mitra (see earlier show note), Savitr, and Indra at different times on pg. 43 here which perhaps explains why pg. 44 credits Agni with being the “slayer of Vrtra” even though Indra is given that credit elsewhere (see earlier in this show note). Agni is given many descriptions including as an eagle or another bird, a calf or bull or horse or, in one case, a winged serpent on pg. 41 at the above source. Another entity mentioned in Indian lore is Vivasvant (see pg. 28 here which is a title for the sun and also the father of Yama and Manu (see other show notes). The author of the book I have referenced for many of the stories and legends from Indian heritage argues that the gods originated from some natural element like the sky, the sun, or a storm (see pg. 39 here as well as the earlier reference to Vishnu as a vegetation god mentioned above). Beyond the names above, there’s also mention of gods described in the “epic” (though it isn’t clear which Indian document is referred to) but says that none of them is as powerful as Siva and Vishnu and that Indra is only described as great on pg. 131 here. As for how people became gods, one scholar noted that there isn’t much difference between the gods and men in Indian lore, so its not hard to see how the gods were just men who gained immortality by one means or another. For more, see pgs. 18-19 here.
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.
For the story from Bangladesh that describes the creation of the world, the first people, the making of alcohol after listening to “Maran Buru,” the survivors of a fire-rain hiding in a cave, repopulating the world, living on a plain, and being divided into different groups, see pgs. 3-9 here. As for the identity of “Maran Buru” the story on pg. 6 refers to him as “Lita,” though the footnote on that page says that “Lita” is the real name of the chief “bonga.” The “bongas” are “spirits” according to the article here. While “Maran Buru” is the chief spirit, it is different than the creator which is named Thakur Jiu in both the article above and the story recorded by Skrefsrud. With all the parallels between the Santal story and the history in Genesis, I would expect there to be debate over whether the Santal story was influenced or modified by contact with Christianity. Later in the legends Skrefsrud records, the Santal source does mention past animosity with Muslims (pgs. 12-13), and since Islam arose after Christianity (see here which gives the founding as 622), it suggests at least some contact with the outside world after Christianity arose and prior to Skrefsrud’s arrival. Furthermore, after telling the story recorded by Skrefsrud, the translator of the above book adds additional legends and suggests, on pg. 14, that the language used to describe creation in one of those legends sounds Christian, though it is unclear the source of that material. On the other side, there are a few things that support the idea that the stories told to Skrefsrud were true Santal memories and beliefs. First, the story of creation recorded on pgs. 3-5 doesn’t sound particularly like Genesis at all. In summary, the first man is formed from dust, but then is trampled by a horse. Then birds are made instead. When the birds have no food, the god asks help from an alligator, a prawn, a fish, a crab, an earthworm, and a tortoise to help make land without saying whether the god created those animals already or not. The earth is then formed on the back of the tortoise out of dirt brought from under the sea by the earthworm, and plants grow. The birds lay eggs and the first humans hatch from those eggs. The birds then had to find a place for the humans to live and tell the god where it was. It’s only after that point that the part of the story involving “Lita” and the human’s making alcohol begins. Beyond that, after people are grouped in the plain, the story becomes much more focused on the migration of the ancestors of the Santal, and how they came to worship Maran Buru, which makes the history specific to them rather than something imported from another tribe or civilization. Furthermore, as is outlined on pg. 2 at the above source, the Santal stories were told twice for every member of the community, meaning that everyone would have heard the stories frequently over the course of their lives. This let the community act as a group memory of the past and likely helped stories stay more consistent over time (I would assume). Beyond this consistency, as more people know a story, and it forms some of their identity, I think it would be harder to incorporate the early history of a foreign source into family history (as stated earlier), though this is only my speculation. For another summary of three versions of the Santal’s legends, see pgs. 196-198 here. In that story, the mountain where the couple shelters from the fire-rain is called “Haradata” while in Skrefsrud’s version it is “Harata.” The note from Richardson, Don. Eternity in Their Hearts (p. 39). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition observes that the name “Harata” sounds like “Ararat.” For the location where the Santals live, including Bangladesh, see here.
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 here there is speculation that there was a common language across southeast Asia at one point, but what that language was isn’t clear.
For the creation story of the Katchins, which includes earth being formed from a fog, see pgs. 263-264 here. The story goes on with a summary of lots of other spirits and the earth being formed by one being with a hammer who lived on a mountain.
For the story of the nine beings who came down for the sky and started eating a kind of rice that cooked itself, becoming too heavy to go back to the sky and then developing crime, see pg. 265 here.
The Kachin story of animals eating the plant of life is found on pgs. 296-297 here. That story also notes that this is the reason that animals can be sacrifices for humans, a connection that the author suggests comes from Buddhism.
For two gourds bringing both death and passion into the world, see pgs. 288-290 here.
In another legend of the first sin, a man had grown old nine times, but then faked his death, leading to the god killing him and death entering the world. For details, see pgs. 264-265 here.
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 here.
Among the stories I came across from people in southeast Asia, the Karen legends stood out. Some of the specifics are recorded by Francis Mason in the appendix to his book here. Stories he records include god creating men, woman being made from a rib, being deceived by a “dragon,” and eating fruit from a forbidden tree (including references to “Satan,” though this could just be a translation of their word “ku-plaw” which means “deceiver” as stated in the above source). There are also references to a flood in both that source and on pg. 208 here) where two brothers survived on a raft though the story doesn’t have much detail or a clear ending. There is also a bit that sounds like the Tower of Babel from Genesis where people once built a giant pagoda to reach heaven but the god came and scrambled their speech so they couldn’t understand one another as described on pg. 383 here (The original source is referenced in the footnote on pg. 383. I found that source via this page which took me to the original document in archive form where the story is found pg. 163-164 here. You can also find this story recorded on pg. 63 here as well as pgs. 135-136 here). All these similarities between Karen legends and the history in Genesis make it easy to suspect that somehow the stories the Karen tell are just modified versions of the stories from Genesis. See, for instance, pg. 383 here which suggests the Karen just put a veneer of legend over originally Christian stories and pgs. 269-271 here where, based on their migration legends, a common origin in China for these tribes and some contact with Jews or Christians is assumed. That source goes on to point out that there are other legends which don’t show much connection with Genesis and a history of some form of serpent worship (which I might suggest could be a memory of events in Eden, though that is only my speculation). According to one source (search “genesis” here to find the right section) even the original author, Francis Mason, speculated that the Karen might’ve been related to the “lost tribes of Israel.” In general then, given the similarity between the stories the Karen tell and what’s found in Genesis, there’s some probability that they had contact with either Jews or Christians. The problem, though, is what the Karen legends don’t talk about. The source above (here), after dismissing the influence of Christians in the region long ago, and listing stories from Genesis of “creation, fall, flood, and tower of Babel” as parallels found in Karen stories, concludes that the Karen probably weren’t in contact with Christian missionaries, because there is no reference to anything outside the Old Testament and no mention of Christ. This argument can be taken back even further, though. The most recent thing mentioned in that author’s list was the Tower of Babel, which would put the Karen legends paralleling Genesis only through Genesis chapter 11. Don Richardson in Eternity in Their Hearts (p. 74). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition points out that the Karen don’t reference either Abraham or Moses. This undermines the idea of a close relationship to Judaism or at least pushes back their break-away from Jewish history prior to the time of Abraham, which is very near to the time of the Tower of Babel. Ultimately, the above source here suggests early Chinese beliefs as a possibility (see later show notes) or some unknown missionary whose teachings were incorporated into Karen Mythology. It’s easy to be skeptical that these Karen legends are independent from Genesis and believe that they are just stories somehow copied from there. They do parallel the history in Genesis very closely with lots of similar details which makes it easy to wonder if Jews or Christians influenced them. If they did, though, the problem is how Christians or Jews influenced those stories and didn’t leave any other trace of Jewish or Christian stories among the Karen legends as well. On the other hand, if Christian or Jewish influence can’t explain where the Karen legends came from, it leaves open the possibility that their stories really are memories passed-down generation to generation since the days of Babel, though there’s not enough historical documentation to be confident of that.
After a section describing legends about how languages came to be, one author argues that some stories (presumably flood stories) may just be memories of mountain lakes, long ago, that flooded their banks and covered the lowlands, drowning most of the people there, and dismisses the idea that there’s anything significant in them (see pg. 267-268 here. I suppose it is possible some flood legends could be memories of mountain lakes bursting, but it isn’t stated which mountain basins would have contained that amount of water or how the water got there. To me, if any of these legends are memories of mountain lakes bursting, I would guess those memories were generated after the main flood that once covered the world and was the source of the water that initially filled those mountain basins.
Not all stories of language confusion sound like the history in Genesis. In one found on pg. 267 here languages are confused when three brothers get too excited trying to catch a rat. It doesn’t sound much like Genesis, but the detail of three brothers is an interesting coincidence. A story from the Lao people says everyone came from a melon as recorded on pgs. 285-286 here. That doesn’t sound much like Genesis either, though the mention of a high plateau could be a recollection of a time when water was in the lowlands, though that is only my speculation.
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.
Update 9/3/24: Updated formatting of a citation in a shownote.