IN SEARCH OF HISTORIES:
The Biblical patriarchs were very prominent and important figures in Noahic times. They were the originators of nations and empires. Other than the scant references in Scripture, where does the historian go to find detailed historical records? He goes to the records of the Gentiles, of course; for before Abraham this is all that existed. Before Abraham, there were no Jews or Genesis records. Now, what are these Gentiles records but the traditional mythologies of the various nations. As mentioned before, because the mythologies are the resources for Noahic history, the personages mentioned in the myths are necessarily the genesis Patriarchs under different names. They are the counterpart histories of the Genesis record; but, if this is so, why then are all of the characters called 'gods' and 'goddesses' whereas, Genesis records them as mere humans? The answer lies in the origin of Pagan Idolatry and its consistent habit of deifying human heroes and villains. Notice in most myths that even though the gods are 'gods' they possess mortal qualities in that they are enamored of the opposite sex, and they also die just as quickly as humans do. If one cares to believe that all the races of mankind originated out of Noah's family, then it must also be believed that all the different cultural myths have some common origin in the Noahic family as well. Believe it or not, the Genesis 10-11 figures are real, historical figures and their histories are real events. Their accounts, however, are locked up in the pagan accounts, myths and legends of the ancient world. They are composed of the cosmogonies of the pre-Abrahamic Gentile world. The ancient Greek mythographer Euhemerus recognized that these pagan mythologies were real, historical memories of the past. From this, he discerned that these gods were merely deified men. Euhemerus lived around 300 BC, and established in his studies the theory
that the many 'gods' of the various myths arose out of the deification of dead 'hero-men.' His Historicists interpretation reduced the gods to the level of distinguished men, leaders, kings and heroes. He theorized that the origin of mythology arose from the corrupting of the earlier primordial historical events of these 'hero-men.'
Euhemerus professed to have found an inscription on a golden tablet on the Island of Pomchaea which recorded the events of Zeus and his successors, Ouranus and Cronus, during a time when they all had been humans of great sovereignty. It was after this period, that they came to be worshipped as great gods. Prior to this they were known only as mere men. The many gods were not 'gods' at all, but only men that had been deified by the ignorant heathen children, the sons of the Tower of Babel.
The requirements for any true synthesis of a primitive history of Noah's time, are the recognition of a historical Noahic Flood; the understanding that 'all mankind perished' except Noah and his family; and, the acceptance that the Mosaic account in Genesis records the historical sons and descendants of this small family of eight super-human like people. Yet, the majority of modern scholars have reduced the universal value of the Genesis-10 names to a mere ethnological 'Table.' In other words, they regard this List of names as a Mosaic record of a few nations in close proximity to Palestine.
Dr. Pilkey suggests that much of the academic world, including the Christian scholastics, reduce Genesis-10 to a purely Semitic range of reference--that the Jewish tradition in Genesis should be confined to Palestine and Syria. In this view, this list of names and tribes is purely local; a Table of Semitic Nations, rather than a Table of Universal Progenitors of all mankind: "A Noahic record of the seminal nations of mankind." This localization theory is challengeable if any non-Semitic Nation can be traced to just one of the Princes listed in the Genesis-10 group. The fact is, Genesis records the systematic feudal system of the sons and tribes of Noah's family, for the purpose of generating the nations, races, tongues and languages of the world. Pilkey says in his 'Origin Of Nations' book, that Christian scholars have apparently failed to realize that adopting the localization theory utterly destroys the integrity of the Genesis record's intent and the Noahic tradition as a principle of historical science. Pilkey continues by insisting the following:
Studies of ancient history have been hampered by unimaginative
reactions to the Biblical tradition of Genesis 9-11. Theological
liberals and conservatives alike have missed the conceptual challenge
offered by the Biblical explanation of world origins. (Letters,1988)
He says that if historians were to accept the monogenetic origin of all mankind, the Noahic Flood and the high longevities of Genesis 11, they would consequently "arrive at more daring conceptions of antiquity than the prevailing ones."(Ibid.) Now, the prevailing ideas of Genesis are conceptual disgraces and a compromise with the polygenetic world view point. They re-interpret the stories of Adam and Eve and Noah as mere fables. This, he says, is a slap in the face of every Patriarch, from Noah to the messiah and the Apostles. The great 18th Century historian and philologist Sir William Jones, in his 'Asiatik Researches,' points out the following even to his day and age:
Either the first eleven chapters of Genesis (all the allowances being
made for a figurative eastern style) are true, or the whole fabric
of our national (Christian) religion is false; a conclusion which none
of us, I trust, would wish to be drawn. I, who cannot help believing
the divinity of the Messiah, from the undisputed antiquity and
manifest completion of many prophecies, especially those of Isaiah,
in the only person recorded by history to whom they are applicable,
and obliged, of course, to believe the sanctity of the venerable books
to which that sacred person refers as genuine. (21)
To both Pilkey and Jones, Genesis is rather the 'inner anatomy of a cosmos,' the cosmos that Noah established to give mankind a second chance at civilization.
SACRED AND PROFANE NAMES:
To what extent are the names of Genesis-10 identified with individual men? Some appear as names of men, others suggest tribes or nations. The conventional viewpoint refers to all the names, excluding the ones that are undeniably patriarchs, as names for nations, hence, 'The Table of Nations.' Yet, on closer examination, the text shows that each name designates both a patriarch's name and his personal tribe or nation which he founded: Canaanites from Canaan; Hebrews from Heber or Eber(the Syrian Habiru); Assyrians from Assur, son of Shem(the Hindu Asuras). The most obvious and well known are the Hamites from Ham; Shemites from Shem; and the Japhetic nations from Japheth. Each nation or tribe listed, relays the name of its founder: Amorites--Amor; Jebusites--Jebus; Arkites--Ark or Arc; and etc. The Genesis list of progenitors amount to about 78 names/members in the Noahic Cosmos. Of course, there were more, but these are the most important ones according to Moses.
THE TABLE: The Biblical genealogy and political alliances in the genesis record is as follows:
The next question that comes to mind is, why do the names change from one tradition to another tradition, if they are all the same patriarchs as is listed in Genesis?
Pre-Abrahamic traditions have identified Noah with cognate names, as well as non-cognate names. For example, some of his philological variants are Nao, Noa, Oan, Sennao and Oannes, while some of his non-cognate mythological identifications are Sisuthrus, Oinas, Ionas, Odacon, Dagon, Ixora, Vish, Nou and Vishnou or Vishnu (Visnu). The Biblical principle of name changing, for whatever reasons, supports this Gentile principle, as the former surely received it from the latter. Abram experiences a cognate name change to Abraham. His wife received the same treatment. Other persons involved in name changes have been Israel, Moses, Nimrod (Amraphal), Canaan (Luke's Cainan), and that of Yahshua to the Greek Ie-Zeus or Iesus or Jesus. The New Testament discloses this principle clearly with Saul, whose name was changed to Paul. This name changing principle seems to extend even into the future! It seems to be a universal in scope. There were name changes in the Old Testament and name changes in the New Testament grace period. In looking ahead, we can see that name changes also take place in heaven! The Revelation of St. John discloses to the reader that this principle still functions at the name changing of the Saints, when Jesus gives to them a new White Stone with a new name on it; a White Stone of Eternal Purity(Rev.2:17). These name changes all have something in common. The idea is related to some spiritual change in the person relative to some dispensational change. When God changes His tactics, people undergo "A Lamb's Book of Life" change.
Another historical example of name changing is exemplified in the Shem-Melchizedek identification. The Jewish Rabbinical writers identified Melchizedek with the Patriarch Shem, son of Noah. They based their equation upon the tradition of the Mesoretic-Hebrew 'short chronology,' in their compilation(manuscript) of the Book of Jasher. They contended for the reductionists' position of the Hebrew short chronology. They were in heated debate with the Extentionists', who supported the longer chronology, as contained in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament--the former subtracting and the latter adding 100 years to each of the patriarch's lives. The Hebrew shortened chronology would identify the two names with the same person, Shem, while the Greek 'lengthened' chronology would separate the two and identify them as separate people. The reduced chronology consequently makes Abraham a contemporary with Shem, which then, lends great credence to the view of Abram receiving his Commission from Shem, the Melchizedek of the Hebrew Genesis. The other denies this.
The records of the Gentiles favor the Rabbinical tradition of the Hebrew 'shortened' chronology. The Cheops Pyramid measurements mathematically calculates a flood date of 2532 BC This is a much later date than what the Greek Septuagint manuscript records. As evidence for the Pyramid's accuracy, the Rev. Bishop Cumberland, in his compilation of Sanchoniatho's Phoenician History, shows that the Phoenicians of Old Phoenicia retained very important and unadulterated identifications, as well as a short chronology. Concluding from his materials, studies show that the figure "SYDYC" is the mysterious figure Melchizedek! The Phoenicians, he says, were relating these things prior to the Grecian adulterations, hence, retaining the more truthful chronology and identifications. The termination or the third syllable 'ZEDEC," in the name Melchizedek, was the King and priest of Salem or Old Jerusalem, situated in close proximity to Phoenicia, the home of Sanchoniatho. The Sydyc that he speaks of is the Zedek or Melchizedek of the Bible; Sydyc and Zedek are cognate, one is Hebrew and the other is the Phoenician spelling. ZDK and SDC are the same. We, therefore, have in this parallel tradition a confirmation of the Rabbinical claim that Shem is Melchizedek, and support for our claim or the ancient tradition of name changing. This also supports the shortened chronology of the Mesoretic Hebrew Text of Genesis.
In the three volumes work, "Mythology and Folklore of the Old Testament," Mr. James Frazer sets forth a series of cultural traditions of the Noahic Flood. Each account is a variation of the Biblical account and depicts, in various styles, the Great Flood and a group of survivors. Sometimes it is a large boat and at other times it is a tree or hilltop. In some it is eight survivors that escape a flood and at other times it is some other number. Yet, almost all of them relay that one is more prominent than the others. In most of them, he is a type of Noah, even though, in more regional accounts, he is just the All-Father or aboriginal primordial Creator; the progenitor of all mankind. Each one varies some from the Biblical account, yet each retains a strong 'Biblical' flavor. In only a few instances does the recorded name of this being have any cognizance to the name of Noah, the rest have no etymological similarity at all. Nevertheless, Frazer's compilation is an excellent example and illustration of the universality of the Flood tradition and of the memory of Noah. The collection of Noahic accounts represents a testimony to the historicity of the Genesis account. This name changing is not only evident with the Noah figures, but is proved to be universal to all the Genesis Patriarchs.
It is not an easy task to form a clear picture of the succession of events of the times of Noah. The testimony of Scripture is scanty and what commentators add chiefly illustrates those few particulars given in Genesis. To supplement and expand the record it is necessary to sift through and examine the many Gentile traditions for the motifs that agree with the Genesis account. Genesis is, therefore, the foundation upon which ancient history is built. According to Genesis , the Flood was so extensive and fatal in its consequence that it must have left lasting impressions upon the minds of the survivors and must have been followed by continual reflections by later descendents. The many memorials, were for a long time, religiously preserved, coming down to modern times in mythological forms. These 'trace-memories' of Noah and his family are still to be found in mythology. By arranging and comparing mythological motifs with the Biblical ones, there may be perceived further details of the Noahic chronology of history. The first requirement in approaching the traditions of the Gentiles is to locate and verify positive identifications of Noah and his family members within Gentile pantheons(lists of gods). By doing this, the historical reliability of the myths will be demonstrated. Comparative studies will, in turn, help augment the Biblical account of Noah's history. To successfully do this, an accurate method of identification and verification will be needed.
METHODOLOGY--HOW TO MAKE AN IDENTIFICATION:
To identify the Biblical Noah in Gentile mythology, the first step consists of establishing a methodology; a prospective method of verification. The second step is the application of this method to the available mythologies to remove the historical 'trace-memories' relative to the history of the first ages succeeding the Flood. The first entails identifying Noah and other Genesis-10 Patriarchs in Gentile tradition. To do this , a thorough survey of Gentile and Hebrew symbolism must be made. An analysis of Hebrew symbolism reveals a synoptic outline of chronological events. By comparing Gentile data to this outline, a removal of non-Biblical elements can be made. What is left over can then be placed aside for future use. The Gentile list should equal the Hebrew in elemental motifs at this point. From a synthesis of the two sets of outlines a picture of ancient post-flood events can be obtained. Using some of the residual motifs and elements placed aside then helps to fill in some of the details missing in the Hebrew record. This approach is the one Mr. Bryant uses to construct his 'New Analysis of Mythology:'
...to compare sacred history with the profane and prove the general
assent of mankind to the wonderful events recorded (in Genesis):...to
divest mythology of every foreign and unmeaning ornament; and to
display the truth in its native simplicity; (and) to show, that all the
rites and mysteries of the Gentiles were only so many memorials of
their principle ancestors; and of the great occurrences, to which they
had been witnesses. Among these memorials the chief were the ruin of
mankind by a flood and the renewal of the world in one family. (22)
The second step is to identify Noah in these profane accounts. Observing the pagan myths of Creation and Chaos and Floods does this. Most all of them have some 'all-Father' figure or Creator god-being or divine pair surviving a flood or cosmic chaos. Mr. Bryant says, that the Gentiles had their account versions of the same Biblical event(s) and that they also had their memorials of Noah, just as the Genesis account does:
They had symbolical representations, by which these [Biblical]] occurrences
were commemorated: and the ancient hymns in their temples were to the
same purpose. They all related to the history of the first ages; and to
the same events, which are recorded by Moses. (22)
As mentioned above, the Mosaic cosmogony reveals a series of historical visual points of interest; hieroglyphic motifs outlining the entire 'primary' events following the Great Flood. These key events are the elemental motifs for the decipherment of Gentile mythological histories. Mr. Bryant stated that the most obvious and important event of ancient times was the Biblical Flood, while the second most important event was the renewal of the world by one family of survivors. But, according to the genesis account, there were other events of great importance too. For instance, the building of the Tower of Babel and the Dispersion of people from Babel to all parts of the globe. The genesis list of important chronological events runs as follows. I have numbered them odd numbers, for the even numbers(not listed) represent the events in-between the Biblical that can be found in the mythological histories of the gentiles. In-between each odd number is a Gentile storehouse of historical information ready and waiting for the historian.
1. The Flood
3. Ark Landing
5. The Sacred Mountain(Ararat)
7. Exodus from the Ark
9. The Survivors(numbers vary. Usually an octad)
11. First-Father Figure
13. The Septad Family
15. First altar and sacrifice
17. The New Covenant Blessing
19. The Rainbow Covenant
21. First Colony on Sacred Mountain
23. Tri-partition of the Earth
25. Divine Triad of Sons
27. Vineyard's First Fruits
29. Defilement of Noah
31. Blessing on Shem
33. Blessing on Japheth
35. Cursing on Canaan(some say Ham)
37. Hamitic/Canaanite Rebellion
39. Nimrod's Reign
41. Apostasy at Shinar
43. Tower of Babel project
45. Destruction of Babylonian Tower
47. Confusion of Tongues
49. Dispersion of Shinar people
51. Post-Babel Migrations
These motifs and events of Genesis are the substructure of Pagan mythological history. The myths are obviously constructed upon the memorials of these events, especially the Flood. The Flood is a universal tradition, as can be seen from any review of mythological literature. It was, it appears, the 'grand epoch' memorialized in almost every national mythology. Each nation, therefore, has its own version of these events coded in mythological terms, which only the genesis account can decipher. James Frazer records over hundreds of national mythologies containing varied types of the genesis chronology.
Now, it must be remembered, that, "when colonies made anywhere a settlement, they engrafted their antecedent history upon the subsequent events of the new location." In this way, they could carry up their genealogy of princes to the very source of their beginnings. Thus, it will be found, that the first 'King,' 'god,' 'Creator,' or 'Father-figure' in every national myth was the Biblical Noah. In observing closely these traditions, we find that the ancient mythologists compounded their Creation account with the tradition of the Universal Flood. This presents an apparent problem, but not one that cannot be resolved.
To distinguish between Noah's Cosmos and the Creation Event it must be noted, that the ancients compounded their Creation account and Tradition Flood account, confusing the two together. This presents an apparent problem when trying to decide between events relative to Noah and Adam. Pagan accounts of Creation generally contain some strong allusions to the Flood. Similarly, other accounts of the Flood are frequently marked with elements of the Creation. Some cannot be distinguished as the Flood or creation, but appear to represent a blended version of the two. The cause in both instances is the same. Because of the Pagan doctrine of the succession of similar worlds, with a chaos or catastrophe between each one, the Creation proper was not esteemed a proper creation or a production of something out of nothing. It was rather viewed as a re-organization of old matter into new materials. Each one was described along with the great Father floating upon the Waters of Creation in some craft. Accordingly, the new appearing earth was viewed as the newly organized mundane system out of the prior system; the Great Father once again appearing out of the Chaos with his seven family members. According to Pagan philosophy, there was no essential difference between the first Creation and the World's successions of renovations. With such being the case, the heathen Cosmogonies and the accounts of the Flood would be much intermingled together. To explain this problem further, a few things must be clarified. Pagan cosmogonies were not borrowed from that of Moses, nor did Moses simply copy and edit his Genesis from the Pagan accounts. It must be remembered, that originally, the traditions were independent of each other, separate and distinct with their own origin, but were later compounded together at Babel in order that the true history of Noah and God's Righteous Judgment with a flood might be forgotten. The flood chaos then becomes the chaos of Creation and the Father of post-flood civilization becomes the first created man or god; with the creation over-shadowing the flood event. Since the two bear close resemblance, the genesis account being the finer, they, therefore, in a monogenetic context, originate from a common mono-mythological source--the Tower of Babel. Unlike the much more clear account in genesis, the Gentile however, defaced the truth, both by rejecting the belief in the true proper Creation and by confounding their cosmogonies with the history of the Deluge. The matching typology was obvious; the confounding simple enough and the results to the true history of Noah disastrous. From all the havoc and hell of the rebellious sons of Noah at Babel, only the Genesis account has stood out among all the others as a key to unraveling the mysterious confusion found in the world's national mythologies. This answers the question of why Moses wrote such an account as Genesis in the first place, when he had so many 'other' accounts to chose from. He had the Egyptian Cosmogony to choose, as well as Syrian and other Mid-Eastern Cosmogonies. The accounts are similar, but the specifics are different. The dissimilarities between them and the Biblical versions give Moses' record its uniqueness. This betrays its authenticity and God's seal of inspired approval.
Evidence for all the other motifs can be found in most of the mythologies of the world. The second elemental motif is the 'All-Father' or Creator-Man, who always accompanies the imagery of a flood or chaos event. For example, the Babylonians, in their Creation Account Epic of Marduk--The Enuma-elis--called their Noah or Adam figure "APSU", a name meaning 'abyss of water.' Another is the Egyptian's Creator father NU, NUN or NIN, the Celestial Water God. Frozen within the icy cultural memories of the Icelandic people, is the Noah figured Bergelmir. The Welsh call him Dwyfan, while the people of Savoy call him by the Genesis Noah. In Tibet, he is Khun-Litang; in Assam and Burma he is Chu-Liyang, Lip-Long and Paw-Pow-Nan-Chuang. In southern China and Lolos, Noah is called Du-Mu. In Sumatra he is Puti-Orla; Borneo has him to be Trow. The Floras Islands and the ancient Nagas of India call him Dooy. Formoseans call him Kabitt and Aka, while the Australians reference him as Hepelle. Persian Iranian tradition remembers him as the original Mashya.
NUMERICAL SYMBOLISM OF NOAH'S FAMILY:
East Indian tradition has a parallel Creation symbolism comparable to the Hebrews. The Hindu Warrior god Indra, like the Biblical Noah and family, is known to have participated in the creation of the Cosmos and New World. He is shown bringing forth seven Rishis "breaths", " Masters" or "Great Teachers":
In the beginning, the Universe [World] was non-existent, say
the Rishis. [But, a question arises] ''Who are these Rishis?'
[Anon answers}They are breaths. (For) Before all this Universe,
they strove with toil, and austerity. This was the breath in the
midst of Indra, who is the one who kindled [organized] them.
He is the kindlier Indha, who they call Indra. They were
kindled seven separate purusha [men-persons-Rishis].' (23)
This Vedic passage, mentioned by Mr. Moore, reveals two very important similarities to the Biblical Noah: 1) The emerging out of Chaos and 2) the associated 'seven' other persons. The imagery communicated through this cryptic phrase actually recalls to memory the Mosaic account of the Flood disruption and the succeeding historical events. Like the mythical Indra, Noah also toiled for many years prior to the Great Flood catastrophe and with the assistance of seven others, transcended the chaos and rebuilt the New World; the one I live in now. As soon as this new creation or renovation was complete, Indra is seen emerging as the first to partake of sacrificial wine just as the Vedic passage assures us:
...Indra's greatness has been veritable since that time [after
the chaos] when, as soon as he was born [emerged out of the
chaos], he did drink of the Soma Juice. (24)
These and many other antiquated traditions point to a single mythological 'memory' of the most important post-Flood figure in all history--the Patriarch Noah. The Flood or Chaos survivor, as has already been shown, is also associated with other figures. They are the seven-companion survivor Rishis, persons or gods. This small economy of beings is variously described as a Septad, an Octad and the tradition twelve Olympian gods. The most primitive company numbered at seven, with the All-Father or First-Father numbering the eighth. In the Egyptian mythology it is described as the small economy of Eight Gods or The Khemenu, "The Eight Original Ones," and "The Original Eight." The Greeks perverted it into "The Twelve Olympian Gods." The Hindus retained the number at seven, with Indra as the eighth.
Throughout all the different mythologies of the world, the gods are classified by elemental symbols such as Sun, Moon, Fire, Water. The principle god is usually called the Sun God. Others are called by various other elements. These symbols are universal to all mythology and are a major key in comparative studies. A common identification of the gods is possible through these elemental symbols. For instance, the Grecian Sky God Ouranus is equivalent to his predecessor, the Sumerian Sky or Heaven God Anu-I. Cronus, the son of Ouranus, is the Greek version of the Sumerian Air God Enlil. These are only two out of the many examples available in monogenetic studies. The Hebrew tradition, unfortunately, does not lend itself to such elemental symbolic interpretation, for the Hebrew's apparently avoided adopting the pagan genealogical system. Therefore, to form any associations between the two systems, other comparative identification methods must be employed.
The myths also demonstrate a uniform tradition of Royal Hereditary descent of the gods. This Kingship descent principle is found in the more ancient and comprehensive mythologies. These sons of the gods are described variously as Avatars, Kings and Incarnations. The Sumerians of Mesopotamia in their Kinglists began their Royal descent of lineage with 'The Descent of Kingship out of Heaven.' The Hindus also have their ancestral lineage of the Incarnations of Vishnu and Manu. The Teutonic tribes of Europe remember their ancestors in the multiple versions of Odin-Thor, etc. The Greeks also seem to have applied the same principle to Jupiter, who appears as more than one god. Many traditions retain some succession order, though others display a more isolated system of distinct names. This system of Royal descent appears to commemorate some kind of royal line of hero men like the Hebrew lineage of Genesis Patriarchs. If their is any Hebrew parallel at all, it must be that of the political rulers and sons of Noah, as found in the Genesis-10-11 lists.
Another fascinating mythological parallel that has some historical basis is the exiled infant motif. This universal myth finds its historicity in the life of the infant Moses, who, set adrift by his mother down the Nile River, was eventually found and adopted by the Royal House of the Pharaoh. This legendary motif can be traced to the more ancient myths of the Pagans. The Greeks have their infant Perseus; the Akkadians have Sargon-I; the Hindus have their Mahabarata Epic Karna and the ancient Japanese have their Kojiki figure Susa-No-Wo, the Leach-Child or Sun-Lad. Surely the principle of a mono-mythological source is demonstrated here.
The Descent of the Earth Mother into Hades or the Nether World is another universal motif. In many older myths, The Earth Mother descends into Hades and is then trapped. She is then prohibited from eating certain 'hellish' foods. She commits this hellish act and is then transformed into the Hellish Goddess of Death. The Near Eastern Sumerians have Inanna occupy this position. The Babylonians have Ishtar; the Greeks have Persephone and/or Aphrodite; the Romans have Venus and the Northerners have Herthus, Frigg and Freya, while the Japanese have Izanami or Tisikinopokami.
Another universal motif is the War between the Gods. The duplication of a single divine battle is evident in their elemental similarities. The Hindu Mahabarata War is the same as the Epic Ramayana War, which are close parallels to the Mosopotamian War between ancient Erech(Uruk) and Aratta, described in the Enuma-elis Epic of Marduk. The Greeks have their version in the Titan-Olympian War. The ancient historian Nonnus records this war as the Bactrian War. In the Enuma-elis Epic, Old Mother Hubur-Tiamat, wife of Apsu, is shown gathering an army of eleven monsters or clans against the god Marduk. This same scene is found in the later Hindu Ramayana Epic, where eleven monkey tribes are gathered against the evil Surya-Ravana, the King of Lanka. The dissimilarity is the former Epic has Marduk the hero, while the latter has him as the villain Ravana. Yet, the parallels are striking and smack of an ancient colonization connection between the Near East and India. India seems to have retained many of the Near Eastern myths, but under different names and titles and political views. Another myth in support of this connection is the myth of the Sleep Spell. The Near Eastern Enuma-elis records the story of Ea/Enki conjuring up a sleep spell against the god Apsu and his vizier Mummu, where Ea is shown stealing Apsu's sacred garments. The Hindu Puranic myths record this same legend in the person of Indra. With this comparative study, Indra and Apsu seem to be acknowledged as the same person-god. Both were, after all, gods of the Water.
Other comparisons can be made with the many Royal Triads, the Regents of the Four Quarters of Earth or Cardinal Points; the Primeval Septads; the Divine Octads; the Holy Rivers and many others. The Biblical theory that answers this question of how so many parallels can be found, is the Biblical doctrine of monogenesis from a single common source!
Before any reconstruction of Pre-Abrahamic events can be made, a thorough analysis of Noahic genetics must be made. The primary interpretive key is monogenesis. The understanding of a single origin for all mankind is vital for the removal of all polytheistic elements from mythology. It follows, that a 'euhemeristic' re-evaluation of the gods in light of the early Genesis Patriarchs ultimately leads to an identification of all the so-called gods with the Genesis figures. The next step is the identification of all the mythological First-Father figures with the Biblical Noah. The third, is genetic chains inherent in the mythological genealogies or what we should call genealogical segments.' Most of the early myths will commence with the First-Father figure or Water God of the Abyss. Exceptions to the rule, will begin with different political figures and descendants. The most important Biblical genealogical segment chain is: 1) Noah--Ham--Canaan--Sidon. 2) Noah--Shem--Arphaxad. Some of the most important Gentile mythological chains are: 1) Deucalion--Ouranus--Cronus--Poseidon--Pelasgus, and 2) Apsu--Anu--Enlil--Enki.
Establishing genetic segments within the mythologies is of prime importance for the synthesis of proto-historical events and for the expanding of Genesis biographies. Such segments, when recorded and analyzed, can be used like pieces of a puzzle to piece together segments of lost history. Comparing various mythological segments through associating similar motifs, can expand the testimonial range of the genesis account. A small sample of this type of experimentation is the comparing of the three following 'known' segments. One is from the Greek and the other is from the Bible, while the third is from the Babylonian mythologies.
SYMBOL: SEGMENT-I SEGMENT-2 SEGMENT-3
First-Father Noah Deucalion Apsu/Abzu
Heaven God Ham Ouranus Anu
Air God Canaan Cronus Enlil
Sea God Sidon Poseidon Enki/Ea
The Sea God motif, for example, helps to substantiate the genetic segment link between Poseidon, Cronus, Ea and Enlil. Thus, elemental motifs help to verify genetic identifications between different traditions. Elemental motifs or symbols lend much support to much other genetic identification. Elemental genealogical segments are scattered throughout all the traditions, but are less common than the formal genealogies. In the Greek myths the God of Chaos marries the elemental Earth Goddess and they give birth to the Heaven God. The complete 'elemental' segment runs as follows:
1) Chaos and Earth Mother beget
2) The Heaven God, who beget
3) The Air God, who beget
4) The Sea God
Another example is the ancient Near Eastern tradition of Chaos--Heaven--Air--Sea--the Sun. A somewhat different genealogy is the East Indian segment: The Fish God out of Chaos--The Storm God--The Lunar/Moon God or King--The Solar/Sun King. The
process is simple. Once a segment is established, identified and found complete (without any breaks), all the varied motifs become spatially fixed, while all the rest become either duplicates or later versions of the originals. The segments from Genesis, the Greek and the Babylonian myths are identified from their comparison with the Genesis Patriarchs. The Greek id traditionally known to have been designed upon the Babylonian and Egyptian myths. Thus , the Greek segments are duplicates of the Babylonian, with the names changed according to language.
HEBREW GREEK BABYLONIAN MOTIF
Noah = Chaos/Deucalion Apsu Primeval Water God
Ham Ouranus Anshar Heaven God
Canaan Cronus Enlil Air God
Sidon Poseidon Ea(Enki) Sea God
Genealogical charts can, therefore, be constructed using just the 'elemental' motifs or epithets. These are primarily the under-currents or layers for the verification of the more formal genetic genealogical segments.
1) Primeval Chaos & Earth
2) Heaven God 3) Storm God
4) Air God 5) Moon God
6) Sea God 7) War God 8) Sun God
9) Sun God-II
Other identifications can be made through more detailed studies in the various elemental clusters or marital relationships in the genealogies. For instance, the wives or consorts of the primeval Water God of Chaos are as follows:
1) The Sun Goddess
2) The Moon Goddess
3) The Air/Water Goddess
4) The Shepherd/Earth(Mother) Goddess
Once a complete genealogical analysis and identification of the genetic segments is made and all the methods of verification are employed for validating the equations, a well-established genealogical reconstruction can be made. Once the reconstruction is finished, a thorough analysis and correlation of all the political intrigues and religio-philosophical positions can be established. This all, then, consolidates into a coherent, synthetic, chronological history.
The following comparative genealogy chart of the different cultural mythologies explains the common identity of the Hebrew Patriarchs and the Pagan gods. Numbers 1-5 are the Sumerian, Babylonian, Greek, Hindu and West Semitic Ugaritic names for Noah. The lines connecting them are identification lines. Running obliquely are the genetic lines of descent. Thus, Apsu, Anshar, Anu-II, Ea and Marduk describe the paternal descent of Marduk's family line. Where there is no genetic connecting line, the genetics are questionable or non-existent. The figure may or may not be the father, etc.
The Mesopotamian (Sumerian) pantheon appears to be a genetically based lineage, when compared to the more generalized or obscured Ugaritic one. The Semitic Ugaritic does have a few genetic ties, but nothing comparable to the Sumerian or Babylonian. Baal is mentioned as the son of Dagon and the father of Math, plus a Buffalo or Wild Ox. He has four wives who include his sister Anath, while Bull-El is shown as the father of Yamm, Mot and Nahor. Asherah also has four sons. The rest are vague and obscure.
The East Indian genealogies are more genetically comprehensive compared to the Ugaritic ones. The Indian one covers both the patriarchal and matriarchal lines, delineating the paternal and maternal linkages on both sides, while favoring the Shemite Line. The Indian also has much longer genetic segments than any of the rest, as can be seen from the chart. The Greek and Babylonian genealogies, though, favor a more comprehensive Hamite lineage on the paternal side of Belus, while completely neglecting the other side for obvious Hamitic political reasons. The Sumerian only gives a hint as to the composition of the paternal Hamite side, and neglects the maternal side altogether. This leaves Lugalbanda out, isolated as a cultural hero--a legendary figure "without father or mother." Overall, the Ugaritic or Canaanite list seems to be the most vague, probably because of its late composition.
Beginning with Alulim (No.1) and finishing with MahaVisnu (No.42) spans the whole chart. A bibliography of each will be given along with what I believe to be the best comparative synthesis of each identity equation. Indra and Brahma will be dealt with more extensively for two reasons. First, they are the most important; secondly, they are more extensively documented in the Indian myths. The others will serve to explain the genealogical family descents.
The following are the chart and the pantheon lists from the different mythologies relative to the Genesis-10 studies. The elemental motifs and the Biblical identities are correlated to each god for easy reference.
A. Sumerian Pantheon:
2. (Ham)------Anu-I-----Heaven God
3. (Canaan)---Enlil-------Air God
4. (Sidon)-----Enki------Water God
7. (Shem)-----Ishkur----Storm God
8. (Arphaxad)-Nanna---Moon God
9. (Uzal)------d.Inanna--Fertility Goddess
11. (Obal)------Utu------Sun God
B. Babylonian(Semitic) Pantheon:
1. (Noah)-----Apsu-----God of the Abyss
4. (Sidon)-----Nudimmud/Ea-Water/Sea God
5. (Shelah)----Marduk---Sun God
7. (Shem)-----Mummu-----Apsu's Vizier
8. (Arphaxad)-Sin----------Moon God
9. (Uzal)------d. Damkina--Mother of Marduk
10. (Shelah)---Marduk------Creator/Sun God
11. (Obal)-----Utunapishtum--Sun God-II
C. Greek Pantheon:
1. (Noah)-----Deucalion---Flood Survivor Hero
2. (Ham)------Ouranus----Heaven God
3. (Canaan)---Cronus-----Air God of Time
4. (Sidon)-----Poseidon---Sea God
D. East Indian Pantheon:
1. (Noah)-----Indra-----Thunder God
2. (Ham)------Sunda/Kama-Love God
5. (Shelah)----Ravana/Surya--The Lanka Sun God
7. (Shem)-----Brahma---Creator God
10. (Shelah)---Ravana/Martanda,Vedic Sun God
E. Syrian Ugaritic West Semitic Pantheon:
1. (Noah)-----Dagon/Elium/Alilu/Alalus--Fish Man God
2. (Ham)------Anus(Hittite)--Antagonist to Alalus
4. (Sidon)-----Kothar---Hayyin, Craftsman God
5. (Shelah)----Bull-El / Tr-Il
7. (Shem)-----Baal/Hadad-----Rider of the Clouds/Storm God
9. (Uzal)------Shapsh-----Torch, the Sun Goddess
10. (Shelah)----Bull-El-----Creator of Creatures
The first of the biographies consists of a selection of primeval fathers found throughout the major mythologies. Some appear as water-gods, or gods of chaos--the Abyss. Others appear as survivors of catastrophes and cosmic floods. Yet, the one thing they all have in common is that they are the first-mentioned being to exist and to procreate the gods and mankind.
COMMENTS / EMAIL