Flood Legends by Charles Martin Page A

the two. I consider the Hebrew version to be the source of the Flood legends from around the globe.
    Now I know what you're thinking. Can I just easily dismiss the other two versions that we've looked at? Why can the Sanskrit version not be the accurate version? What about the Kariña version? How can I summarily — some would say whimsically — toss the other versions aside? Is this a sneaky, underhanded, creationist trick? Not at all. Let's look at the three versions and really analyze them for feasibility.
    The Hero
     
    First, from the point of view of the hero, I would very much hesitate to accept the Sanskrit version. Remember, the point of the hero is that he is a virtuous, upright (at least in heart) person who obeys his god. From a character-trait-driven perspective, this is not difficult to imagine. We have all known at least one good person in our lives. My father is one of them: he is a kind, gentle man who is generous with both his time and money. However, from a realistic and feasible standpoint, I have reservations in regards to the Hindu version.
    No matter how pious a person may be, I cannot envision him or her standing on one foot, soaking wet, for a thousand years. Even if the text were speaking in hyperbole — which it gives no indication of doing — interpreting it another way is simply impossible; there is no room for another translation without seriously disregarding the existing text. On the other hand, if we were to look at the Kariña and Hebrew versions, those heroes are more believable. The Kariña survivors recognize Kaputano's supremacy and obey him …they heed his warning. Likewise, Noah is "righteous" and "blameless before God," and, therefore, heeds God's warning.
If
a person were communing with God, and
if
God were to give a warning regarding a flood, then we can reasonably expect the person to react accordingly. However,
if
a man were pious, and
if
a man were an ascetic, can we reasonably expect him to stand on one foot, soaking wet, for a thousand years? Not really. From a very physical perspective, no matter
how
pious a person is, his foot cannot support him for a thousand years; it is virtually impossible.
    Please understand that I am not trying to make light of the Hindu version. However, from a purely practical standpoint, if I were forced to eliminate the accuracy of one version based solely on the hero's characteristics, it would be the
Mahābhārata
. There are, however, other reasons I would dismiss this version, as well.
    Crew and Cargo
     
    In looking at the crew and cargo, there are several factors to consider, first of which would be the number of crew members. The simple fact that all three primary versions tell us that eight people were on the vessel is a
strong
argument for the historical validity of a deluge. But which eight people were they? Were they "four couples," a family, or the hero and his seven wise sages? From a textual standpoint, I don't think it much matters, because each version is
contextually feasible
. That is to say, eight people on board are a reasonable number, and, within each story, the crew members make sense.
    For example, within the framework of the Genesis version, where God chooses one man to build his ark, we could reasonably expect God to also choose that man's family as the crew. Within the Kariña version, Kaputano arrives on earth and addresses
everyone
, thus giving
everyone
a chance to respond. In this case, we could reasonably expect that the four different couples who do speak up would not necessarily be related. Within the framework of the Fish Story, where Manu re-creates everything, we simply do not need a group of couples that can procreate, and therefore the Ŗsis would suffice.
    Nonetheless, I have a simple reservation about accepting the presence of the Ŗsis: I am unsure of their validity. Please do not misunderstand me: I have no doubt that at some point in time the Ŗsis actually existed. Remember, though, that within the