Flood Legends (3 page)

This is a good place to start. Whether or not a culture regards a myth as history should be the first sign for which we look: if it was history for them, perhaps it should be history for us as well. While this is an excellent start, however — and I want to emphasize this — it is only a
start
. There is a second aspect that I feel we should take into consideration when determining whether to pursue a myth as history. This second aspect involves looking at whether the myth is a myth of
nature
, or a myth of
event
.

Myths of Nature vs. Myths of Event

For most cultural literature, myth falls into one of these two categories. What is the difference? A myth from either of these categories
may
contain the intervention of a deity, the myth
may
contain a moral lesson to be learned, and it
may
involve humans. The main difference between the two categories is found in the
primary purpose
of the myth. Does the myth serve, primarily, to narrate an
event
, or does it serve to explain
nature
? The story of Narcissus transforming into a flower is far different from the story and witness of Christ. One attempts to explain the origin of a flower, the other bears the story of our Savior's life and death. One explains, the other narrates. One is a myth of nature, the other a myth of event.

Myths of event unfold a narrative that tells of the intervention of gods in the world of men. They may, as well, tell of superhuman feats achieved by human characters. Sometimes there is a moral, sometimes not, but they
always exist, first and foremost, to tell a "story."
The
Iliad
is an example of such a myth. A ten-year war fought with the aid of the gods and goddesses of Greek culture contains the necessary elements for the event myth: a story regarded as history (and now known to be at least partially true), but with an element of the supernatural. While there are morals and lessons to be learned throughout the narrative, the poem itself is written with an authority that treats it more as a history lesson than a fable. To all appearances, it was regarded as an actual war by the Greeks. What is more important, however, is that the war
was
an actual war, and Troy an actual city.

Myths of nature show distinct tendencies to be explanatory — to describe a phenomenon in the world that was inexplicable with the science of the time. One such myth, the myth of Apollo's chariot, tells of the god Phoebus Apollo, who sails across the heavens in his chariot of fire each day.
²
The myth clearly attempts to explain the path of the sun through the sky. While it is an interesting and fascinating story, we know it to be scientifically incorrect because the mechanism behind the process can be explained. Technology has given us the ability to observe the earth in space and to see the sun for what it is …and what it is
not
. It
is
, for example, a furnace of nuclear energy. It is
not
a shining god in a golden chariot, racing through the heavens.

Likewise, we know that lightning forms at neither the hand of the Roman god Jupiter, nor at the hand of the Hindu god Indra. Myths of nature may serve to explain the mysterious world around its tellers, but the cultures that designed such myths did not have the convenience of weather balloons, probes, or a working knowledge of electricity. As such, they were forced to devise an explanation that could be plausibly accepted. For them, the gods who aid in battle and boost the fertility of crops are the same beings who send lightning from the sky. This does not mean that they were less intelligent than we are today; it simply means that the tools for understanding nature were not available. While myths of nature
are
narratives by necessity, they do not serve to narrate the history of a culture, but serve, instead, to explain a
natural
phenomenon. Incidentally, what many people — mythologists included — seem to forget is that myths of nature are not restricted to the past. Modern myths of nature abound today. One example is that of the big-bang theory.

Having rejected the creation myths of cultures around the world, astronomers sought to find the origin of the universe. In 1929, Edwin Hubble observed that the universe appeared to be expanding, and cosmologists searched for an explanation. The theory they developed was that of an event now called the big bang.

We would call the big bang a
living
myth because it is still evolving and growing. Like the earlier creation myths that preceded it, it changes and grows as discoveries are made and the scientific culture changes. In other words, the myth morphs into an "acceptable" form with each new discovery.
³
Neither this constant change, nor the initial rejection of other creation myths, diminishes the reality that the universe has a beginning; the story of its beginning simply changes to suit the teller. It seems that modern cosmology, you see, has simply replaced older myths with a newer myth.

Myths of nature explain the world around us, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. Myths of nature give comfort to us because — until new myths emerge to replace the old ones — they provide meaning to a chaotic natural environment. Myths of nature are also generally easy to either prove or disprove, and therefore are not extremely useful to study through the lens of telephone mythology. We may pursue them through other avenues like astronomy, physics, and biology, of course, but from a literary and historical standpoint, myths of nature hold little interest for us. There are always exceptions, and as such, the two are not always mutually exclusive. One could argue, for example, that many of the creation myths are both a type of event myth
and
a type of nature myth. However, in our study of telephone mythology, myths of nature are not really brought into the equation.

On the other hand, myths of event explain
who we are
, as both members of humanity and as members of a distinct culture. They detail significant events in the lives of people, events that often changed the course of history. Because none of us were there when the event myths happened, many of them are difficult to either prove or disprove. Unless we can find
irrefutable
evidence that an event never occurred, therefore, event myths should seldom be taken for granted. Does this mean we accept all event myths as accurate? No, because we must always weigh the evidence. And what if the evidence is unclear? Telephone mythology, as a means of studying event myths, will help us in those cases. This brings us back to the Deluge Myth.

The Deluge requires us to look at the development of cultures from around the world, and the way their beliefs — expressed in their mythology — are presented. Once again, however, we look not only at how this myth shapes our perception of the cultures we study, but how those
individual cultures
influence the telling of the myth; we must examine how the myth
changes
with the culture that is telling it.

Like the beginning of the universe, the reality of a global flood is in no way diminished by the various retellings of the story. Just as innumerable creation myths tell us that there
must
have been a beginning, in whatever form, the flood myths around the world tell us that there
must
have been a Flood. Likewise, however, just as the earlier nature myths have been rejected, so have the earlier event myths. We must then ask a very serious question: how can we be sure that our new myths are more accurate?

Perhaps they are not. Perhaps in discarding many of the old myths, we have discarded truth. Perhaps we have discarded our very history. Perhaps we have replaced that history with a false myth, a false myth that, though it seems more "probable" to our minds today, is simply wrong. Instead of global flood myths, we reinterpret them as local flood myths. The question, though, remains: can we
reasonably
do that? I believe a serious look at literature is necessary at this point in our development. So let's approach mythology with an open mind; let's
pursue
truth rather than
assume
it. Let's see if the literature lends itself credibility instead of taking it, without hesitation, as false.

We'll start by looking at just a few of the diaspora myths, and see how telephone mythology applies. We'll look briefly at why I believe telephone mythology is a very viable form of study. Then we'll turn to our global flood myth and see if, perhaps, telephone mythology can help us lend credibility to the different flood legends.

Endnotes

Chapter 3

The Diaspora

So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth; and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel — because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth

(Gen. 11:8–9).

The most well-known version of the diaspora story is, of course, that found in Genesis 11, the Tower of Babel. The basic plot tells us that mankind decided to "make a name" for itself by building a city "and a tower whose top is in the heavens."
¹
God, seeing that the people's arrogant efforts were aided by their communication with each other, confused their language and "scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth."
²
Most people view this well-known myth as an attempt to explain the variance in languages around the world, making it a type of nature myth. A
lesser
-known part of the account, however, is found in the preceding chapter of Genesis, often called the "Table of Nations." In chapter 10, the descendants of Noah are listed, in some cases to the sixth generation after Noah. Many of these descendants can be identified with ancient nations. For example, Mizraim, Cush, and Canaan
³
can be identified with the regions of Egypt, Ethiopia, and Palestine, respectively.

What this implies is that as the descendants of Noah dispersed, many of them founded cities and kingdoms that ultimately bore the names of their founders. So Mizraim, Noah's grandson through Ham, founded a kingdom that became
known
as Mizraim — the Hebrew name for modern-day Egypt. Cush, in turn, founded a kingdom known as Cush — the ancient name for modern-day Ethiopia. And, of course, the "land of Canaan" is modern-day Palestine/Israel. Some even identify Meshech, grandson of Noah through his son Japheth, with the ancient name for Moscow (though this is still a widely debated point). In essence, what we find in this "Table of Nations" is that many of Noah's descendants are linked to specific countries and people groups.
⁴

This is a perfectly reasonable idea. Even today in America, many of our historical sites bear the names of famous and well-known people of that time:
James
town,
William
sburg,
Penn
sylvania, and so forth.

While this does not
prove
the Genesis version, it certainly indicates that, if the Table of Nations is even
somewhat
accurate,
some form
of dispersion occurred. If we add to this dispersion the "confusion of languages," it is easy to imagine how the development of separate cultures around the world unfolded. We are told later that this division of languages — and henceforth cultures — happened during the time of Peleg, Noah's great-great-great-grandson through his son Shem.
⁵

The diaspora myth is often considered an attempt to explain the origins of other languages, but, in truth, it goes beyond that. While it does explain the origin of foreign languages, it also serves to narrate the history of a group of people after a catastrophic flood. It acknowledges that, after the cultures developed different languages, they began to scatter and divide, with like languages grouping together. Naturally, as these groups began to divide, newer dialects emerged, which soon became newer languages, driving further wedges between people groups. As more and more languages formed, more and more people began to segregate, forming more and more cultures. It is sort of a "linguistic natural selection," or a "birds of a feather flock together" mentality, which, I strongly believe, transforms it from a
nature
myth into an
event
myth.
This
is the basis for the telephone mythology theory. Why? In such a diaspora, we would expect
similar
stories to develop
different
details, because
one
central culture would fragment into
many
different cultures. However, this theory only works if the diaspora myth has credibility.

Does the mere
existence
of "The Great Dispersion Myth" in Genesis lend itself credibility? For some, that is enough. For others, however, they need something more substantial. To me, the myth only has credibility if it can
support itself
by showing evidence of having spread throughout various cultures. If a myth about the dispersion has, in effect,
dispersed
to other cultures, then it becomes a supportable theory. Now the question becomes:
does
it appear in other cultures? Fortunately, it does.