About
the Book
Table of Contents
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
Part VII
Part VIII
|
Part II: Flood Traditions
Chapter 1
The Nature of the Traditions
HERE ARE two
Flood stories which are surely not borrowed from the Bible. They
have a certain quality about them which is characteristic of
so many of these native traditions. There are elements in them
which dimly reflect the same event, though the details have become
misty through the intervening centuries. Only the basic fact
remains. James C. Prichard records the story as told by the natives
of the Leeward Islands. (1)
Soon after the peopling of the
world, the god Ruhatu was reposing in his coralline groves in
the depths of the ocean. The waters about this area were sacred
and fishing was taboo, but a certain fisherman, disregarding
the fact, lowered his line till the hook became entangled in
the hair of the sleeping god. He tried very hard to draw it up
again, but succeeded only in arousing the god from his slumbers.
Ruhatu appeared at the surface and upbraided him for his impiety,
declaring that all mankind was equally impious and that therefore
the whole land would be destroyed.
The frightened fisherman implored
forgiveness and, moved by his prayer, Ruhatu told him to go at
once with his wife and family to a small island called Toa-marama.
There he would find safe refuge. The man obeyed and took with
him not only his wife and family but, it is generally said, a
friend also, along with a dog, a pig, and two fowl. They no sooner
reached the place of refuge than the waters began to rise, driving
the nhabitants from their dwellings
1. Prichard, James C., Researches into the Physical History
of Mankind, Houlston and Stoneman, London, no date., vol.5,
p.116.
pg
1 of 19
and gradually increasing until in the
morning only the tops of the mountains appeared. These, too,
were soon covered and all people perished. When the waters subsided
again, the fisherman and his family took up their abode
on the mainland and became the progenitors of the world's present
inhabitants.
Here is another
story. The primitive inhabitants of the Andaman Islands in the
Bay of Bengal also have an account of the Flood. (2)
Sometime after they had been
created, men grew disobedient and disregarded the commands which
the Creator
had given them. In anger he sent a great flood which covered
everything except Saddle Peak, where the Creator
himself resided.
Every living creature, man and animal,
perished in the water save for two men and two women who happened
at the time to be in a canoe and contrived to escape with their
lives. When at last the waters sank, the little company landed
but found themselves in a sad plight, since all other living
creatures were drowned. However, the Creator, whose name was
Pulga, kindly helped them by creating animals and birds afresh
for their use. Yet the difficulty remained of lighting a fire,
for the flood had extinguished every fire on every hearth and
everything was very damp.
Whereupon, the ghost of one of
their friends who had been drowned in the deluge, seeing their
distress, flew in the form of a kingfisher into the sky, where
he found the Creator seated beside his fire. Here he tried to
grab a burning brand, hoping to carry it off in his beak for
his friends on earth. But in his haste he dropped it on the august
person of the Creator himself, who was greatly incensed at the
indignity and, smarting with pain, hurled the blazing brand at
the bird. It missed its mark and, whizzing past him, dropped
plumb from the sky at the very spot where the four people were
seated moaning and shivering. That is how mankind received the
use of fire after the Great Flood. Subsequently the Creator condescended
to explain to them that men had brought the Great Flood upon
themselves by willful disobedience to his commands. That was
the last time that the Creator ever appeared to men to converse
with them face
2. Frazer, James G., Folklore in the Old
Testament, Macmillan, London, 1919, vol.1, p.233.
pg.2
of 19
to face. Since then the Andaman Islanders
have never seen him, but they still live in fear of him.
I have chosen these two stories because there
is a certain freshness about them and they are clearly set in
a context that is completely natural to the environment, both
cultural and geographical. They are naive and have none of the
down-to-earthness of the true account in Genesis. But they agree
in certain basic matters, as do virtually all these stories:
1. Man brought
the Flood upon himself either by his disobedience or because
of lack of piety and reverence. The Andaman Islanders' story
contains one rather exceptional circumstance in it which is that
those who
survived did so largely by accident, just happening to be in
a canoe at the time. This is exceptional in that,
to my knowledge, in no other Flood tradition do the survivors
escape by chance. In itself this might be
thought sufficient proof that it is, after all, a story recalling
a local event unrelated to the biblical Flood. But
the circumstance is exceptional.
The introduction of a bird into
the scenario is not altogether surprising, since from very early
times those
who live by the sea have used birds as navigational aids.
In almost all these stories, with
one notable exception (the Flood tradition from Egypt) the catastrophe
comes as a watery judgment. In the great majority of cases, forewarning
is given in some way to those who
are destined to survive.
2. In the biblical
story, Noah is warned by revelation in a direct and personal
manner. Many tribes feel that God is better able to converse
with them indirectly, for example through animals. Thus the Ancasmarca
Indians of Peru (3)
had a tradition which tells how, about a month before the Flood
came, a certain shepherd family noticed that their sheep were
very sad, eating no food by day and watching the stars by night.
At last their shepherd asked them what ailed them, and they answered
that the stars foretold a coming destruction of the world by
water. So the shepherd (and presumably his wife, though the story
doesn't actually say so) along with his six children took council,
gathered together all the food and sheep they could get, and
went to the top of a very high mountain called Ancasmarca. They
say that as the water rose, the mountain rose still higher so
that they were saved. Thus the man and his family escaped and
re-populated the land after the Flood.
3. Ibid, p.270.
pg.3
of 19
It
is a remarkable fact that animals do sometimes give advanced
warning of coming catastrophe by exhibiting uneasiness in various
ways. Before the tragic collapse of the great reservoir dam above
Longaroni
in Italy, animals apparently were seen leaving the subsequently
devastated area as they headed for higher
ground. In the last major earthquake which occurred in Algeria,
many people afterward recalled having noted peculiar behaviour
on the part of many animals as though they were living in fear.
It seems to me not at all impossible that the animals which came
to Noah were guided by the same instinct, a form of "inspired
knowledge" (as Faber termed it so aptly) as a witness to
the law of God written in their "hearts." We shall
have occasion to look a little further into the part played by
animals in many of these traditions in chapter 2.
The Pimas of Northern Mexico (4) relate that a certain prophet
was warned by an eagle (a messenger from heaven?) that a deluge
was coming: but the prophet laughed at him. A second and a third
warning were also unheeded. Not until there came a sudden peal
of thunder and a "great green mound of water" raised
itself over the plain did he believe the warning, and then it
was too late. Only one man, but not the prophet, saved himself
by floating on a ball of resin. This man, whose name was Szeukha,
turned out to be a "son of the Creator." He subsequently
sought out the eagle which had given warning and climbed up a
cliff where the eagle resided and found there a great multitude
of corpses, mangled and rotting, which had been carried off and
devoured. These he raised to life and sent them away to re-people
the earth.
At first sight this story
seems only remotely related to the biblical one. But there are
at least two features in
it worth noting. Unlike most of the traditions, but like the
record in Genesis, we are told that warning was given repeatedly
but was unheeded by those who were forewarned. I cannot recall
such a circumstance in any of the other stories than this one
from the Pimas. The second point of interest is that only one
individual escaped, thereby creating a situation which would
make it logically impossible for the world to be re-peopled unless
special steps were taken to secure it. It is some reflection
upon the practical good sense of many of the native peoples,
who have a similar tradition in which only one individual escapes,
that they all saw the necessity of
4. Titcomb, J. H., "Ethnic Testimonies to the Pentateuch"
in Transactions of the Victorian Institute, 1873, p.236;
J. G. Frazer,
ref.2, p.282; and Byron Nelson, The Deluge Story in Stone,
Augsburg, Minneapolis, 1933, p.186.
pg.4
of 19
"making some such
special arrangements", for the perpetuation of the race.
3. This brings
us to the third point, namely, that the world was re-populated
entirely from the survivors. Sometimes the way in which this
is done is highly complicated. The Singphos of Burma say that
when the
Flood came, a man named Pawpaw Nan-chaung and his sister Changhko
saved themselves in a large boat.(5) They had with them nine cocks and nine needles. After
some days they threw overboard one cock and one needle to see
whether the waters were falling. But the cock did not crow and
the needle was not heard to strike the bottom. They did the same
thing day after day until the ninth day when the last cockerel
crew and the last needle was heard to strike on a rock. Very
soon the brother and sister were able to leave the boat, and
they wandered about until they came to a cave inhabited by a
male and a female elf. Soon afterward, the sister gave birth
to a child, but the female elf who was a witch (and who used
to mind the baby) got very angry whenever the baby cried. One
day when the brother and sister were out, the old witch was in
such a fury that she ran off with the baby and hewed it to pieces,
strewing the bits all over the country round about. When the
poor mother came home and heard what had been done, she cried
to the Great Spirit to give her back her child and avenge
its death. The Great Spirit appeared to her and said, "I
cannot piece your baby together again but instead I will make
you the mother of all nations of men".
And so from one section of the
country where the body had been strewn about, the bits and pieces
came to life and there sprang up the Shans; from another the
Chinese; from others the Burmese; and the Bengalese; and all
the races of mankind; and the bereaved mother claimed them all
as her children because they all sprang from the scattered fragments
of her murdered babe. Is this "scattering" a dim recollection
of Genesis 11:8?
I think it safe to say that virtually
all these Flood traditions agree essentially in this too, that
the Deluge wiped out the human race, necessitating a new start
being made to re-people it. It is difficult, moreover, to look
upon these stories as merely recollections of local floods, since
no matter how sudden or devastating an ordinary flood may be
there are always many families which escape. None of these stories
leaves one with the impression that the survivors named subsequently
met any other survivors to form a new nucleus for the peopling
of the area. They alone escaped in every case.
5. Frazer, J. G., ref.2, p.208.
pg.5
of 19
4.
One of the most striking and perhaps best known of the Flood
traditions in which an animal plays a prominent part is the tradition
from India in which a small fish gives warning. This story is
known in several slightly different forms. (6) The hero's name is Manu, who finds a little fish
in the water in which he is washing
his hands one day. The little fish appeals to Manu for protection
from the large fish who are threatening him
until he grows big enough to defend himself. Manu takes pity
on the fish and in due course, when the tiny creature has grown
up, he puts him back into the sea. Subsequently, when the fish
has become large he warns Manu that because of man's wickedness
God is about to destroy mankind. He advises Manu to build a boat.
This Manu does, building it on dry land much as Noah did. When
the flood waters lift the ship, the fish calls to Manu to throw
a rope over his "horn" -- perhaps a dorsal fin? The
fish then tows the ship to safety on a high mountain in the Himalayas.
Manu is then told to tie the ship
to a tree so that it will not float away when the waters recede.
In some way as the waters go down, the ship is allowed to settle
gradually and Manu himself comes down the mountain. This particular
mount is (in one section of it) called "Manu's Descent."
Once again, special steps had to
be taken so that Manu could fill the earth, since all other human
beings
had been swept away. The story therefore goes on to say that
Manu made a mixture of butter, sour milk,
whey, and curds. (7)
Thence a woman was produced in one year's time. Through her he
generated this race
which is the race of Manu. It appears that the word Manu in
Sanskrit was the generic term for the human race, i.e., "man".
(8)
Here we have an animal giving warning,
as the eagle tried to do in the Pimas' story, and the same creature
helping the survivor to a place of safety. As we shall see in
chapter 2, various animals have been used to indicate the depth
of the water and the condition of the land as the waters recede.
In each area of the world an appropriate animal plays its part.
6. Cook, F. C., The Holy Bible According
to the Authorized Version with an Explanation and Critical Commentary,
vol.I, part I: Genesis and Exodus, Murray, London, 1871,
p.74.
7. Wardour, Lord Arundell of, Tradition: The Mythology and
the Law of Nations, Burns, Oates, London, 1872, p.228.
8. See Max Muller, Lectures on the Science of Language,
first series, Scribner, New York, 1875, p.382.
pg.6
of 19
Birds
are used frequently, and quite often the raven is singled out.
The use of birds both in antiquity and in modern times as navigational
aids has already been noted. The people who inhabit the Pacific
Islands frequently take birds on board and use them to find their
direction when the stars are hidden by releasing them and watching
which way they fly home. When they are very far out to sea but
believe they may be near to land,
they release them with the assurance that they will fly in the
direction of land if land is visible to them from the air. If
they return to the ship they know, as Noah did, that land is
not visible.
We come, then, to certain other
aspects of these traditions.
5. I think it
is a point of real significance that the Hebrew people had a
record of the Flood in which the ark landed on a mountain which
was a long way from where they were, in a distant country of
which the great majority of the people had no firsthand knowledge.
This is a quite exceptional circumstance. All other traditions
report that the ark landed locally. In Greece on Mount Parnassus;
(9) in India the
ark landed in the Himalayas; (10) in Central America one story has it landing on Keddie
Peak in the Sacramento Valley; (11) and so it goes, everywhere the same, always a local
mountain.
This circumstance surely suggests
that here in the Bible we have the genuine account. And it also
underscores the great respect which the Hebrew people had for
the Word of God and the requirement that they never
tamper with it. It would surely, otherwise, have been most natural
for them to land the ark on their most
famous mountain, Mount Zion.
6. It is hard
to know how much importance to attach to the fact that in many
parts of the world the account states that seven others survived
along with the leader of the party. One of several versions of
the Chinese story says that seven others survived with Fo-hi,
who became the father of a new race. (12) But there is some reason
9. Nelson, Byron, ref.4, p.171.
10. Wardour, Lord Arundell, ref.7, p.224.
11. Coon, C. S., A Reader in General Anthropology, Holt,
New York, 1948, p.281.
12. Doubts about the Chinese account: see J. G. Frazer, ref.2,
p.214. Contrast H. Sinclair Paterson, In Defense of the Earlier
Scriptures, Shaw, London, 1882, p.296; and Edward McCrady,
"Genesis and Pagan Cosmologies" in Transactions
of the Victorian Institute, vol.72, 1940, p.68.
pg.7
of 19
to doubt whether this
particular story really is a tadition of the Great Flood of Noah's
time. (We shall return
to this). In Malaysia there are stories which refer to eight
survivors. (13) In
all these cases, one has a sneaking suspicion after reading the
account that the number of survivors is a detail which has been
added -- grafted in,
as it were -- as the result of Christian missionary influence.
For example, it is hard to see how Manu needed
to manufacture a wife if -- as one alternative account has it
-- there were already seven other women. with
him. (14) It is
therefore a matter only of passing interest, and not to be accounted
highly significant, that some of these traditions reflect this
detail of the biblical story. Yet many scholars feel strongly
otherwise.
7. We have avoided
thus far reference to the various Flood stories which have been
discovered in
Cuneiform in the Middle East, where the ark came to rest. There
are a number of these, and they are so
well known that no attempt is being made in this paper to deal
with them at any length. One of the most
useful volumes for information on this subject is Barton's Archaeology
and the Bible, which has gone through
a series of editions. (15)
In various versions of the Cuneiform
accounts there are little touches of realism which -- though
Noah's matter-of-fact account did not see fit to include them
-- may well have been experienced by Noah or his passengers.
For example, one Cuneiform account speaks of bodies floating
about like logs in the water. (16)
And in another place we are told that the gods, after the Flood
was over and "Noah" had offered a sacrifice of thanksgiving,
gathered around like flies. (17) The account in Genesis has no such unworthy interpretation
of subsequent events, although it seems very likely that flies
would gather in such a circumstance. Indeed, it must have been
some time before the dead had decently returned to the dust and
no longer served as food for flies. The interpretation of the
circumstance in the Cuneiform record is clearly on a very low
level of spiritual understanding, but the noting of the facts
themselves is interesting, for it would undoubtedly be part of
the
total effect of the catastrophe.
Curiously enough, some of the stories
which have been preserved among people living beside tropical
waters speak of the evil plight of those who perished and describe
them not only as trembling with fear but shivering
13. Urquhart, John, The New Biblical Guide, Marshall
Brothers., London, popular edition, no date, vol.I.
14. Ibid., p.268. He gives the text of the poem.
15. More recent is James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern
Texts, Princeton University Press, 1969, pp.42-52.
16. Barton, George, Archaeology and the Bible, American
Sunday School Union, Philadelphia, 1933, p 337 at line 135.
17. Ibid., p.338 at line 162.
pg.8
of 19
with cold. (18) In the warmer parts of
the earth this seems an odd detail to have preserved, but
it is quite likely that the immense rains which accompanied the
Flood did have the effect of chilling to the bone those who were
drowned by it. Some of the stories give details that are quite
intriguing as to how the survivors were able to determine, at
the height of the Flood, just how deep the water really was.
This we shall illustrate in chapter 2.
8. My first
impression, after reading a substantial number of Flood traditions
in the kinds of works which are more widely disseminated such
as commentaries on Genesis and biblical encyclopedias, was that
a great many of them showed evidence of borrowing from the biblical
record in a way that might best be accounted for as due
to missionary influence. In due course as my reading broadened,
I came to the conclusion that this impression
had arisen rather naturally for the simple reason that these
sources of information, commentaries and so forth, had tended
to emphasize or draw attention to those traditions which by their
very similarity to the biblical story were most likely to appeal
to their readers. I suspect that a great number of the authors
of these commentaries "swapped" stories, as it were,
with one another so that they were consequently reinforcing the
same selective tendencies.
But from an examination of the
tremendous number of Flood traditions which have actually been
recorded from all over the world and collected by men such as
Sir James Frazer, one comes to a very different conclusion. The
great majority of these stories have in common, as we have seen,
only four basic elements. All other details -- the nature of
the warning, the escape "vessel," the part played by
animals, and so forth -- differ in such a way that borrowing
from the biblical record is virtually excluded altogether. In
view of the demonstrated ability of native people to recall the
details of any story which has been reported to them and which
has
genuinely captured their imagination, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to derive the great variety of their traditions from
the kind of account which would be presumably presented by a
Christian missionary. These native traditions are undoubtedly
recollections from the very distant past of an event which was
so stupendous that it was never forgotten even though the details
themselves became blurred: local coloring restored what had faded.
Thus, in pre-Flood days men were
wicked, but the nature of their wickedness assumed in time many
forms.
18. Nelson, Byron, ref.4, p.183.
pg.9
of 19
The gods were angry,but
sometimes afraid as well! Those who were warned were counted
worthy to be
so for a wide range of different reasons. These few escaped --
but by very different means, though the presence of water meant
they either had to climb, float, ride aquatic animals, or build
some kind of boat. Always, of
course, the event was "local," and always the local
inhabitants were their descendants, whence the world was re-populated.
In a sense, therefore, all these
stories are in agreement, though in fact they are often as different
in detail as it is possible to imagine. In a court of law, the
testimony of witnesses who both agree and disagree in this fashion
is considered to be a more powerful witness to the central truth
than would be complete concordance, for in the nature of the
case collaboration is manifestly excluded. There is no question
that some details are borrowed, though not always borrowed from
missionaries -- they may be borrowed from neighbours. And there
is no question that some genuinely native traditions were modified
or embellished or corrected in one way or another by people who
compared their own account with the true account brought to them
by missionaries. I have a feeling that in some cases at least
this is true of the number of survivors. But the fact remains
that the memory
of mankind in every part of the world bears witness to the reality
of a tremendous Flood which came upon man as a result of his
wickedness.
The essential absence of borrowing
is borne out by one other notable circumstance. While all over
the world a tradition of the Flood may be found, it appears that
this is the last great event in which all mankind shared: the
Bible goes on to speak of other remarkable events (such as the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah), but none of these subsequent
events are commonly found throughout the world as treasured traditions.
It seems most unlikely that a native people who had been taught
by missionaries the events of the Old Testament would completely
forget the Tower of Babel, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah,
or the events of the Exodus. Why should they all happen to remember
only the single event of the Flood? It is most reasonable to
assume that it was indeed the last great event in which all mankind
shared. They were descendants of those who left the site where
the ark landed and were not aware of these later, yet equally
impressive, events.
This selective memory so widely
shared would be very difficult to account for if most of the
people involved had obtained their information through the agency
of Christian missionaries. The measure of agreement between
pg.10
of 19
these stories in their
essentials is some indication that the number of people who originally
experienced this catastrophe and survived it was quite small
-- indeed, probably a single family. (19)
9. We have already noted some of the absurdities
which are often introduced into these traditions in an attempt
to compensate for obvious deficiencies -- as for example where
only one individual survived so that some
special provision must be made to re-people the earth.
There is no doubt that of all the
150 or so known Flood traditions, the biblical account is the
only account which can really be taken seriously by an informed
reader. Sir William Dawson wrote years ago: (20)
I have long thought that the
narrative in Genesis 7 and 8 can be understood only on the supposition
that it is a contemporary journal or log of an eye-witness incorporated
by the author of Genesis in his work. The dates of the rising
and fall of the water, the note of soundings over the hill-tops
when the maximum was attained, and many other details as well
as the whole tone of the narrative, seem to require this supposition.
. . .
In all the other
traditions there are elements introduced into the story which
could not have been witnessed
by the survivors. This is true even of the other Babylonian accounts,
the Cuneiform accounts to which reference has already been made.
For example, these stories record the supposed trembling of the
gods, their jealousies, fears and anxieties, and their relief
when they find somebody has survived. When the gods gather round
the sacrifice like flies, we are being introduced, not to a factual
eyewitness account of what happened but only to what was imagined.
The flies were probably real enough, however one could not know
that they were gods except by imagination -- or by revelation.
Not a few of the more distant accounts assume such "revelation",
and this is done in a way which contrasts markedly with the account
in Scripture. For example, when the survivors send out a bird
or some other creature and that creature does not return, indicating
that the Flood is not over
yet, the account almost invariably gives details of what happened
to that animal! In short, the events are used
as an excuse about which to spin an elaborate tale as though
the writer had followed the animal and
19. On the Tower of Babel, see appendix 2.
20. Dawson, J. William, The Story of the Earth and Man,
Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1880.
pg.11
of 19
observed all its subsequent
doings.
This kind of embellishment is entirely
missing in Scripture. And I think one reason for this is that
the record
in Genesis is an eyewitness account. To me it seems almost self-evident
that once the journey on the water had begun, once Noah and his
family were inside the ark and the rains began, from there on
revelation has not entered into the account. Like any other captain,
Noah kept his daily journal, marking off the events of the days
and the weeks and the months, carefully and precisely and accurately,
as he and his crew experienced them.
And this raises another issue which
cannot be altogether avoided, though here I should like to tread
with care because it is possible to be mistaken. I think that
if revelation is not clearly part of the record, one must assume
that Noah could not know for sure that the Flood was of global
proportions: he could only see what he could
see. Everywhere was water; not a piece of dry land remained in
sight. This was all he had to go on.
It has been argued occasionally,
as it was for years by Sidney Collett, (21) that because Flood traditions were world-wide, the
Flood itself must similarly have been global in extent. But this,
of course, is a dangerous argument to use for this purpose since,
if people all over the world survived to bear witness to the
reality of the Flood in their own districts, then Noah and his
family were by no means the sole survivors. While this is, of
course, a possibility, my impression is that those who argue
strongly for a global Flood would be the first to insist that
people did not survive anywhere else except in the ark. And it
seems to me that the subsequent chapters of Genesis are best
understood as intending that the world's population was entirely
derived from Noah's family.
Those who argue for a global catastrophe
customarily point to the sweeping terminology of the biblical
account which seems all-inclusive. The use of hyperbole in Scripture,
however, must be borne in mind: in one form or another all the
inclusive phrases in Genesis can be found elsewhere in Scripture
with clear limitations as to their meaning. A list of examples
will be found in Part I of this volume. In his commentary on
Genesis, F. C. Cook makes a useful observation which should be
underscored in this connection: (22)
21. Collett, Sidney, The Scripture of Truth,
Pickering and Inglis, London, 1931.
22. Cook, F. C., ref.6, p.77.
pg.12
of 19
The words used
may certainly mean that the Deluge was universal, that it overwhelmed
not only the inhabited parts of Asia, but also Europe, Africa,
America, Australia, New Zealand, and Oceania; most, if not all,
of which Islands and Continents were probably then without human
inhabitants.
Yet, if only the inhabited world
was inundated, and all its inhabitants destroyed, the effect
would have been the same to Noah, and would most likely have
been described in the same words [my emphasis].
It has been
customary in certain quarters to treat the biblical account as
of "late" origin, the story being borrowed from the
supposedly earlier Cuneiform accounts. One reason for believing
this is that we do have substantial portions of Cuneiform accounts
of the same event which are far earlier than any equivalent manuscripts
of the biblical account. But there is another factor which has
a powerful influence in deciding who borrowed from whom. It is
acknowledged on all sides, by liberal and conservative theologians
alike, that from a moral and religious point of view the biblical
record is vastly superior to any of the Cuneiform accounts. Evolutionary
philosophy being the dominant guide in such matters, it is required
that the purer form be derived from the cruder one, the monotheistic
account from the polytheistic one. So the Bible must have been
borrowed from the Babylonian one -- and therefore must be later.
In Sir James Frazer's Folklore
in the Old Testament there is an extraordinary example of
how to reason in a circular fashion with blinkers on, and starting
with a false premise! Here is his statement: (23)
Formerly under the influence
of the Biblical tradition, inquirers were disposed to identify
legends of the great flood, wherever found, with the similar
Noachian deluge, and to suppose that in them we had more or less
corrupt and apocryphal versions of that great catastrophe, of
which the only true and authentic record is preserved in the
Book of Genesis. Such a view can hardly be maintained any longer.
Even when we have allowed for the numerous corruptions and changes
of all kinds which oral tradition necessarily suffers in passing
from generation to generation and from land to land through countless
ages, we shall still find it difficult to recognize in the diverse,
often quaint, childish or grotesque stories of a great Flood
the human copies of a single divine original. And the difficulty
has been greatly increased since modern research has proved the
supposed divine original in Genesis to be not an original at
all, but a comparatively late copy, of a much older Babylonian
or rather Sumerian version. No Christian apologist is likely
to treat the Babylonian story, with its strongly polytheistic
coloring, as a primitive revelation of God to man; and if the
theory of inspiration is inapplicable to the original, it can
hardly be invoked to account for the copy.
This is a most extraordinary statement! First
of all, he assumes that the biblical account is borrowed from
the Babylonian or Sumerian account. Apparently this has been
"proved." It follows logically from
23. Frazer, J. G., ref.2, p.334.
pg.13
of 19
this that the biblical
account, being a borrowed one, could not possibly be an inspired
account since it is borrowed from a grossly polytheistic original!
Having therefore demonstrated that it cannot possibly be inspired,
it follows quite logically that it could never be treated as
the lone inspired original of which all the other native traditions
are human copies. Q.E.D.! It probably never occurred to Frazer
that at one time the actual logbook which Noah wrote may very
well have been preserved intact and kept as an heirloom within
the family of
Shem, who therefore had the true account from which Mesopotamian
civilizations several centuries later
derived their own particular scripts, made their copies, and
took liberties which the Hebrew people appear
never to have taken with original records when those records
were in the divine economy of things slated to become part of
Holy Scripture.
One strong indication that the
biblical account is older lies in the fact that in the Cuneiform
accounts more sophisticated terms are used in reference to the
vessel itself. It is called a ship, not an ark, and it is spoken
of as sailing, whereas Genesis merely says that "the ark
went". Furthermore, in the Babylonian and Sumerian
traditions the vessel boasted a "steering-man," i.e.,
a helmsman. One would suppose that writers like Frazer, dedicated
to the evolutionary view of things, would be reluctant to derive
a story of a barge without sail or
helm out of a story of a ship with sails and rudder, since this
is to derive the less sophisticated out of the more sophisticated
-- evolution in reverse. Yet, evolutionists are flexible individuals
and when it suits their purpose the evidence can be adjusted
to fit.
Frazer thinks that one of the circumstances
common among the traditions of the coastal or island people --
namely, that the sea rose, that the waters came up
-- is evidence that such traditions refer to local flooding as
the result of earthquakes causing tidal waves or local subsidence
of the land. In some cases violent tropical storms may have caused
tremendous invasions of sea water in the form of exceptionally
high tides. He gives a number
of examples which he thinks are pretty conclusive. (24)
It would be foolish to deny that
some of these accounts may have originated in this way, but it
is important
to bear in mind that the great majority of them present us with
a picture, not of a tremendous tidal wave
24. Ibid.: Kamars, p.195, Minahassans, p.223;
Hawaiians, p.245; Macusis, p.265; Michoacan Indians, p.275; Cora
Indians, p.280; Tinneh, p.312; Eskimo, p.328; and Masa, Nilotic
Negroes, p.330.
pg.14
of 19
sweeping inland and
smashing everything before it, but of rising waters that came
up comparatively slowly
but exorably, wiping out the existing civilization. Many natural
disasters resulting from tidal waves have been reported in detail
in the past, and one of the extraordinary things about them is
that so many people, by one circumstance or another, survived
the catastrophe. It is doubtful if there is any historical record
of such an event completely obliterating a civilization so thoroughly
that only one family survived (25) Yet virtually every one of these nearly 150 Flood
stories record that this is exactly what did happen: only one
party survived. Have there really been that many such catastrophes
in every part of the world, even in the Arctic, catastrophes
of purely natural occurrence? It seems far simpler to assume
that with a few possible exceptions these are not accounts of
local events but recollections of one single catastrophe which
left such an impression on those who survived that their descendants,
hundreds of generations later, never altogether forgot it. As
Kalish has stated: (26)
It is certain . . . that these
accounts are independent of each other; their differences are
as striking and characteristic as their analogies; they are echoes
of a sound which had long vanished away. . . .
There must have indisputably been
a common basis, a universal source. And this source is the general
tradition
of earlier generations. The harmony between all these accounts
is an undeniable guarantee that the tradition is no idle invention;
a fiction is individual, not universal; that tradition has, therefore,
a historical foundation; it is the result of an event which really
happened in the ages of the childhood of mankind; it was altered,
adorned, and it may be magnified, by the disseminations; it was
tinctured with a specifically national colouring by the different
nations; it borrowed some characteristic traits from every country
in which it was diffused; it assumed the reflection of the various
religious systems; but though the features were modified, the
general character was indestructible and remained strikingly
visible.
Although Lenormant
takes a rather less conservative view of the value of Scripture
than the evangelical
does, he is nevertheless a most informative and stimulating writer
whose respect for the biblical record is very real. In one of
his best-known works, The Beginnings of History, he has
a substantial section dealing with Flood traditions. In introducing
this section he has these words: (27)
25. The sole possible exception would be the
disappearance of the Island of Atlantis, if there was such an
event as Plato makes there out to be.
26. G. Kalisch, M. M., Historical and Critical Commentary
of the Old Testament: Genesis, Longmans Green, London, 1858,
p.205.
27. Lenormant, Francois, The Beginnings of History, Scribner,
New York, 1891, p.382.
pg.15
of 19
Among
all the traditions which concern the history of primitive humanity,
the most universal is that of the Deluge. It would be going too
far to assert that this tradition is found among all nations,
but it does re-appear among all the great races of men saving
only in one instance -- an exception which it is important to
note -- and that is the black race, traces of it having been
vainly sought . . . among the African tribes.
It may be necessary
to qualify this when we have a better knowledge of African native
traditions, but since Lenormant wrote, many scholars have spent
a lifetime in Africa among its native people and yet have been
unable to point with certainty to a genuine Flood tradition.
This includes David Livingstone and Robert Moffat, both of whom
remarked upon this lack. The question is, Why is this?
It is possible that the situation
in Egypt may shed light on the problem. In this country the annual
flooding
of the Nile is the very lifeblood of the people. Every year the
river overflows its banks and by careful management can be made
to flood almost the whole of the valley wherever cultivation
is possible. At this time people "cast their seed [i.e.,
bread] upon the waters" with the promise that after many
days they will find it
again once the waters have retreated (Ecclesiastes 11:1). For
such a people it was virtually impossible to think
of a judgment, a punishment, coming in the form of a flood covering
the land. The one thing they feared was
a failure of the flood to occur.
If Africa was settled by people
who crossed the Nile Valley, it seems logical to suppose that
when they got into the dry, hot places of Africa where water
was so vital to survival, it would be easier for them to forget
about a tradition of a flood which had come as a judgment.
The Egyptians did, however, have
a tradition which might very well be a recollection of the Deluge
transmuted into an intelligible form, from their point of view.
(28)
The great god Ra once assembled
the other gods and said, "Behold, the men which have been
begotten by myself, they utter words against me: tell me what
you would do in such a case. Behold I have waited and have not
slain them before listening to their words [defense.]."
The gods replied, "Let thy face permit it, and let those
men who devise wicked things be smitten and let none among them
survive."
So the goddess named Hathor went
forth among them and "slew the men upon the earth: and behold
Sechet for many nights trod with his feet in their blood even
to the city of Hierapolis." The anger of Ra is appeased
28. Urquhart, John, "The Testimony of
Tradition to the Flood" in Bible League Quarterly,
no.152, 1937, p.119.
pg.16
of 19
by an offering comprised of 7,000 pitchers
of liquor made from fruit mixed with human blood. When Ra saw
the vases he said, "It is well: I shall protect men because
of this. I lift my hand in regard to this and declare that I
shall no more slay mankind." In the middle of the night
he commanded the vases to be turned over. The result was a great
flood which was regarded as a sign of returning favor!
In his Mythology,
J. Bryant, after pointing out that the god of the Nile was named
No, goes on to remark upon a ceremony in which it was customary
to carry about a kind of ship which played a rather similar role
that the Ark of the Covenant did in Israel. (29) It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the
deity thus honoured was none other than Noah with a slightly
corrupted name.
In his commentary on Genesis, Skinner
notes that in 1904 Edouard Naville claimed to have found fresh
proof of an Egyptian Flood tradition in a text from the Book
of the Dead which contained the following words: (30)
And further I (the god Tum)
am going to deface all I have done; this earth will become an
ocean through an inundation, as it was at the beginning.
Thus in one
corner of the African continent we do seem to have some vague
recollection of a flood.
In China we meet with a rather
similar situation, although there are traditions such as will
be found in Frazer's Folklore in the Old Testament, a
list of these being given at the end of this paper. It is rather
likely that the first settlers migrated down the Yellow River,
settling in the areas watered by it. It is just possible that
the topography of China, being such that irrigation was dependent
upon the Yellow River (as well as the other two great river systems),
may have left the same impression with these early settlers who
thus came to associate controlled flooding with prosperity. It
is customary in most essays which deal with these traditions
to point especially to the following story which is identified
as a reference to the Deluge. The first Emperor of China, Fo-hi,
was produced supernaturally from a rainbow. (31) He is said to have bred seven sorts of animals for
sacrifice and that he appeared in the country after a convulsion
in which waters in the bosom of the earth burst forth and
29. Bryant, J.: quoted by Lord Arundell of
Wardour, ref.7, p.249.
30. Skinner, John, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Genesis, Clark, Edinburgh, 1951.
31. Titcomb, J. H., ref.4, pp.238-39.
pg.17
of 19
overflowed it. He was
attended by his wife and three sons and three daughters by whose
intermarriage the whole "circle of the earth" was inhabited.
This catastrophe occurred because man despised the Supreme Monarch
of the Universe.
This story is believed to be a
composite made up of a genuine native tradition compounded with
parts of the biblical story resulting from missionary teaching.
The original story relates to a great flood during the time of
the Emperor Yao, who reigned somewhere around 2400 B.C. (32) Apparently this Flood
resulted from the collapse of certain dikes which were under
the care of an engineer, Khwan. This engineer tried for seven
years to restore the Yellow River to its original course, without
success. However, his son Yu subsequently succeeded where he
had failed.
I think Frazer's assessment of
the circumstances in this instance are reasonable. (33) But China is not without
traditions among certain of its native people, namely, the Lolos
in South China and the Bahnara of Cochin China, as will be observed
in Frazer's list (see next chapter).
It does therefore appear that the
continent of Africa is the sole geographical area in the world
lacking a recollection of the Great Flood. Such recollections
are found in the far reaches of the north among the Eskimo
of North America, the Siberian peoples of Russia, and the peoples
of Finland and Iceland. To the south we find similar traditions
among the Maori of New Zealand, the Australian aborigines, and
the Tierra del Fuegians at the very tip of South America. The
story is, with this one exception of Africa, truly global.
In conclusion,
I cannot refrain from giving one more quotation of a nature similar
to that of Kalisch, quoted above, this time from that great stalwart
of the Faith, John Urquhart: (34)
If this awful tragedy ever happened;
if the entire human race perished save one family, and perished
by the hand of God in punishment of sin, then that judgment must
have cast long shadows. Through generation after generation the
story must have lived on. It must have been the most awful and
solemn recollection of our race. Many things may have been forgotten,
but that could not be forgotten. . . .
32. Legge, James, in his translation of The
Sacred Books of China, Oxford University Press, 1879, Part
I, pp.34ff.
33. Frazer, J. G., ref.2, p.214.
34. Urquhart, John, ref.28, p.117.
pg.18
of 19
If this
recollection has a large place among the treasures of learning
and the themes of poetry; if it has molded the traditions of
every part of the far-sundered family of man; then the conclusion
is evident.
There must have been some awful
disaster that left its impress upon the minds of men before they
scattered abroad upon the earth; and the traditions would, in
that case, be a testimony to man's unity as well as to the fact
of the Deluge.
pg.19
of 19
Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights
reserved
Previous Chapter Next Chapter
|