Note: Dear Reader, this is something of a sister article of my previous article “The Judaeo-Christian Myth”, which you can find linked at the bottom of this article.
The Task at Hand
At least once a week, someone asks me to pen my thoughts on Panchaia Theory - most of them unknowingly. What they really ask is my opinion on the origin of the Indo-European gods. In academic circles, both modern an ancient, Panchaia Theory was the most controversial answer: They were men - ancestral stories of elder kings and great warriors of even elder lore.
I have decided to finally sit down and write an article on said thoughts. By no means will this be a conclusive or all-encompassing article. I will be mostly focusing on Zeus and Apollo, but the process can be applied to any gods and goddesses you want to investigate for links to Noah. This article will also attempt to remain tethered to the topic via the thesis question:
Can the gods of the Indo-European pantheon be identified as biblical or historic characters, such as kings and warriors?
For starters, Jesus Christ himself seems to say yes, the gods are ancient men. He tells his audience that the gods were merely those blessed men of old to whom words from his Father in heaven had been spoken through:
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” ’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
-John 10
We can contrast Christ’s words to that of Justin Martyr, who supposed if they aren’t ancient men, they were likely demons (First Apology, etc) This understanding seems to come from traditions recorded in the Book of Enoch, which spells out the names and misdeeds of fallen Angels and victorious Angels that fought them - read that on your own time, we won’t be going into it here.
You shouldn’t fear my Christian bias here, Dear Reader. Bias is not a bad thing. Rather, one should present multiple biases. That’s better than pretending a matter is neutral. It is better to have a collection of biases to compare and contrast between, than none at all. I will try to include other biases too, so that you may find worth in these words, nonetheless, if you are interested in spiritual or historical matters from outside a Christian framework. But make no mistake, this is categorically a work of un-apologetic Christian propaganda.
However, let me take a pause here to bring up the scientific and secular (read: most likely) argument - something to contrast my thesis question with and allow the not-so-Christian reader to have something to stand on to argue against me:
The overwhelming system of beliefs we call Indo-European mythology are likely the results of some 60,000 years of generational tinkering and innovating in a vacuum.
Now, from the Christian perspective, this is entirely compatible with a Biblical worldview - albeit far less time in a vacuum if you’re a young earther. Christians would believe something along the lines of Japheth and his sons living in isolation from ancient times until contact with Christians. Indeed, it is said in the Old Testament that the Sons of Javan have not yet heard of YHWH’s glory (Isaiah 66:19). Javan here is a stand-in for the Greek peoples, which you will see is very provable further on. Also, as Japeth - the patriarch of Europe, son of Noah - sounds rather similar to d’Yeus Pater - the Indo-European head god - our biblical genealogy might even agree with their pantheon to some extent as well, but there are differences.
However, the temptation to quickly and thoughtlessly link the names must, too, be resisted. It is awfully lazy to simply say “that sounds similar so it must be so!” Don’t forget, Dear Reader, that the tower of Babel happened. Languages were confused. Names garbled. We must not only compare the names as they sound, but what they mean. And until we have a broader perspective, we must not assume. You are likely already aware of name changes like Jacob into Israel, or Joseph into Zaphenath-Paneah, or Daniel into Beltu Sharutsu (which I personally believe to be a variation of Zoroaster). Even God says his real name is "YHWH”, and El and Elohim merely pseudonyms, in Exodus 6:3. However, even with his pseudonyms there is variation. The Hebrew parts of the Bible use El and Elohim, while the Aramaic parts of the Bible use Allah. This shift is a result of centuries of accent changes and word exchanged with neighbors.
It is both these acts of renaming, and these gradual changes to pronunciation, we must keep in mind. Names simply drift with time, as accents change. Consider, Dear Reader, that Genesis was likely compiled some time between 1000BC through 500BC. Japheth was the name at that time. That does not mean Japheth was what he called himself, eons before that. It may very well be that in his day, Japheth called himself d’Yeus Pater, the heavenly Father of Europe. In time, this became deified to Zeus.
It is a common low-IQ debate style to argue that because a name changed, the Bible is unreliable, or indeed any text with alternate names is not reliable. These cavilers imagine some pretend world where Adam must have been speaking the queens English or something. They aren’t really worth debating or bringing up. One who opts to argue this has, by their tactic, revealed themselves to be a buffoon. Names change, and moreover their meanings can survive past a Tower of Babel situation, and centuries of linguistic evolution.
In terms of genealogies, we also have to recognize overlaps happen - even in the Bible. For instance, Cain’s descendants include a Lamech and an Enoch - the same names as Seth’s descendants, Lamech and Enoch:
Each Lamech and each Enoch are two entirely separate figures. But the reality is that these names are in both men’s genealogies. If we were to, say, suspect some ancient pagan god were named after one, how could we tell which one? This is very important because, as we will see, Pagan genealogies and Biblical genealogies do indeed have overlapping names, but often not in the same order or lineage. We will have to try and sort if these are the same figures, or a parallel genealogy with the same names. In the case of Lamech and Enoch, we see that it was Cain’s lineage that first used these names, and then later Seth used them - either by copying or coincidence no one can say for sure. Thus, as we go through pagan genealogies, we may find multiple Djeus Paters, or multiple Japheths. and we will have to attempt to determine if these are the same person, or two individuals with the same name.
We also need to recognize that some of these divinities may not be men, but still real. By that I mean, they could be angels or demons. This is the usual argument Christians make, but it’s something of a hand wave that ignores specifics. For instance, Revelation 9:11 tells us that the god Apollo is actually “The Angel of the Void”. It has traditionally been interpreted to mean this makes him a demon, but I am not so convinced. His epitaph “Destroyer” is the same as the Angel of Death in Exodus, so he seems to be a faithful angel doing God’s work. I’ll explore this later.
Returning to the Greeks, even with some Levantine influence from their Philistine relatives, it is more likely most of their religion is home-brewed in the Aegean and Black Sea regions. For my dear Christian readers, this means pointing out one small elephant in the room. It must be noted here that the nature of the question inherently assumes some merit of truth among the pagans. If their myths were truly nonsense and ad-hoc gibberish pulled out of their butts, the purpose of this entire article is defeated. This article is assuming the pagans exaggerated real people, not assuming they simply made them up.
Ideal vs Real
While I don’t doubt you’ve likely considered my thesis question before, I won’t assume you have heard, Dear Reader, of Panchaia. Even the Wikipedia article on it is short and leaves much to be desired for the well-read. It’s only two paragraphs:
As such, it’s worth explaining what Panchaia was, what people thought about it in ancient times, and what can be extracted from the theory today. Also, cheers to you if you do know what Panchaia is.
The name Panchaia specifically comes to us from the Greek Philosopher Euhemerus, who lived in the 4th century BC - the name is far younger than the idea, you see. According to Euhemerus, Panchaia was an island he visited, and there stumbled upon great tombs which held the inscriptions of a year of birth, a year of death, and the name of one of the Olympian gods. In so doing this, he claimed to have found proof the gods were mere men with tall tales attached to them by their devoted followers. Panchaia itself - the island - seems likely a product of that age-old practice of inventing a mythical utopia, or dystopia. The reasons men do such inventing is generally to show an abstract idea in practice, which most people find more interesting than a boring textbook definition. You’ve probably heard of places like Atlantis, Hyperborea, Neverland, Lilliput, etc etc. All these are the fantastical lands beyond grasp where ideal forms can inform our not-so-ideal lived experiences. No real place will match perfectly, even though some places may be partial matches. Plato’s Atlantis, and Socrates’ thoughts, entertained similar ideas for instance, so it is important to see here that Euhemerus was hardly the first to reckon the gods may be mortal men with tall tales, and he was also hardly the first to invent a utopia to test an idea either. Indeed, he was very unoriginal and, as we’ll soon see, his being remembered is more-so a product of how many people he offended, rather than any novel concept of merit.
Let me use an example here to reinforce this: You’ve likely heard that the planet Neptune was predicted mathematically before it was ever seen by telescope. This is mostly true. It is more accurate to say that an ideal ninth planet with an ideal mass and location was predicted by Newton’s theories. Neptune is merely a best-fit to this ideal. The ideal mathematical Neptune doesn’t exist, and indeed could never exist. The existence of Neptune, rather, confirms that Newton’s theory is fairly reliable - emphasis on fairly.
Did you know Newton’s theory also predicted a 10th planet, Vulcan, located between the sun and Mercury? This planet doesn’t exist in reality. It exists purely in the ideal math of Newton and, unlike Neptune, no best-fit was ever found. So, if we compare the overall solar system with the theory, that’s still Eight and most of Nine out of Ten predictions. However, at the finer details, that’s an entire world missing. In fact it was Einstein’s theories that ultimately proved even more accurate in predicting Eight, not Nine or Ten, planets.
Poof! Vulcan did not exist mathematically anymore, either.
Why am I telling you this example? What does this have to do with ancient pagan gods and Panchaia Theory? Even if Panchaia is a good theory, it is an ideal theory. Reality will not conform to ideals 100%. Just as we may have to deal with multiple figures with the same name, as mentioned before, if we want to use Panchaia Theory we ought not use it to try and meticulously match one god to one ancient king, but it may prove accurate for overall pantheons and genealogies.
Broad strokes, not pretty little trees.
We may find that one or three of the gods in any pantheon are missing, or extra ones of entirely external origin have been stapled on. The evidence for real ancient kings and their corresponding deities will not match perfectly, just as Neptune and Vulcan were part of an ideal theory that didn’t perfectly conform to reality.
This is my point: Theory can predict reality, but reality should not be expected to conform to theory.
On Myth
Nonetheless, Euhemerus seemed to have made enough of a cultural impact that many ancient writers used the term - often disparingly - when speaking of any thought that postulated the gods were mortal men. For the purposes of this article, I will be keeping in this tradition and use the umbrella term Panchaia for all related concepts beyond just Euhemerus’ writing.
Unsurprisingly, the specifics about Euhemerus’ work are lost to us - his text did not survive into the modern era. Why would it? He no-doubt offended many with his claim. What survives are the fragmented quotes by his many critics. One can surmise from this that his writing was meritabile enough to leave a name behind and a number of criticisms, but infamous enough to not be saved by any self-respecting ancient writer.
I’ve made it known quite some times that I am a fan of Panchaia Theory. It appears rational. However, there is one problem: People tell stories, sure. People make them up, too. However, believing in stories takes quite a bit more of a jump than merely hearing and enjoying them. Generally, a bodipolitik needs some kind of oomph to adopt a story into its canonical beliefs. Some great miracle or wonder needs be present. If tomorrow several hundred people claimed Spiderman healed them, perhaps we would witness people to go from a Marvel fan to a Marvel disciple, so to speak.
So there’s the hole in Panchaia Theory to be aware of. The theory postulates that the tales of men have a developmental trend over time going from historic, to legendary, to divine. However, what is the modus operandi to drive people to move a story from one to the other?
At a glance, we might relate this process to, say, the process of becoming a saint. First one is declared a “Servant of God”, then Venerable, then Beatified, then finally declared a Saint by the Catholic Church. We can see how Panchaia theory seems to accurately correlate the age of a story with its development into theological canon. By picking figures from equally distant time periods and comparing their status, we find:
Zeus, perhaps some historic king 5000 years ago, is a god in a pantheon.
Hercules, perhaps some hero 4000 years ago, is half-way between divine and legendary.
Achillies, perhaps some 3000 years ago, is a legendary hero with possibly some divine lineages.
Caesar, living some 2000 years ago, is a great man, yet from humble ordinary human origins. Though some attempts were made to elevate him into a divine figure.
And yet… Isn’t it all a bit dragged, Dear Reader? If Zeus lived 5000 years ago, why wasn’t he viewed as less divine 2000 years ago, or even 3000 years ago? Why is it in these past 2000 years, Caesar and Hercules have not arisen into new gods who overthrew Zeus, like Zeus overthrew the older Titan gods to Tartarus, or the Chaos gods before them? Simply put, there isn’t a modus operandi to do that - at least not anymore since the Christianization of Europe. We might see here a way to plug the hole: The collapse of an existing theological development.
We might also surmise that, perhaps, writing things down prevented any modus operandi. Dear Reader, do you suppose that once something is written down, that the tale becomes official? Perhaps writing ought to be understood as the fossilization process of story? Once penned, it can be referenced, debated over, and age like fine wine into an authoritative text. However, it can also be deconstructed and torn down. Here’s another important process to be aware of: Is Panchea Theory itself merely an attempt to deconstruct? Theology rarely survives deconstruction.
Writing creates institutions, and folk tales become fossilized into official canons. In illiterate times a great lorekeeper might invent new chapters of a figure, or make him divine, or humble him back to mortality. However, once written down, it’s quite literally over. The myth is now a fossil to be looked at and analyzed - even deconstructed. It can no longer be edited.
However, some things can survive this deconstruction process. Contrary to popular secularist claims, oral tradition has been shown to have a remarkable staying power. Recently, Professor Nick Reid in Australia used Aboriginal oral mythology to evaluate landmarks mentioned therein. He found that several oral tales detailed islands that no longer exist but whose remains can be found under the ocean using modern equipment. This would suggest an oral tradition faithfully kept for well over 10,000 years. At any point someone - anyone - could have simply edited some details to point to still-standing islands visible today. Someone - anyone - could have edited the details to anything, really. But they didn’t. At least, not in this instance.
We’re caught in a bit of a bind here, Dear Reader. It seems that some stories can be easily edited, while others cannot - regardless of literacy or how old the tale is. Me thinks we must settle on a somewhat vague statement for now:
Some stories are sacred, and one cannot willy-nilly change the tales of sacred lore. Other stories are fantastical, and people actively enjoy when they are embellished with new and exciting facts.
That is probably why, Dear Reader, there are films about the Spiderverse, but almost none about the Jesusverse. That is probably why Plutarch is remembered, while Euhemerus’ works are lost.
Finally, let’s show how this works in reality. You might be familiar with how the Pyramids had already been a ruin for over a thousand years by the time of Homer and how many myths originated around what they were and who built them in those days. The Pyramids were ancient, even for the ancients. And the tales of their origin are as myriad as the sands of time. The Pyramids are, of course, not a religious matter. However, contrast that with the tales of Osiris. It’s remarkable how preserved the tales are. You can find two authors divided by thousands of years. One will think giants built the pyramids, the other will have seen ordinary men build them. However, they will both consistently tell the same tales of Osiris. This is because one is religious, and the other is not. In fact, Plutarch attempts to deconstruct Osiris into a mere mortal in his own works, but cautions doing such least he be compared to Euhemerus. This indicates that even ancient writers were conscious of what tales can be deconstructed, and what tales ought not be. Such is the discernment they had, and such is the discernment we must carry when evaluating the religious tales of pagans. That’s good, however. Because it means you can trust a pagan to preserve the tales of his gods, even as he forgets who built the buildings to them. Such as the pyramids.
Thus, in the Western tradition religions were born from poets, lore-keepers, and bards in ancient times. They perhaps innovated slightly, but not enough to cause uproar. Later, historians arose as a profession to gate-keep these stories further, and along the way professions like archeologists offered further securities. These institutions primarily deal with the sorting of time and space into either history, mythology, legend, rumor, or any other type of record. Here is a fairly good model of how a tale is edited, or not. Things become established. When a story passes into theology, people care a tad bit more if you change the details. Even an illiterate people who know the text purely orally will communally reject a literate scholar trying to edit matters. We will find this as we investigate it, especially in regards to Crete, which I will get into later.
We can see this in Christianity too. We have a fairly simple origin: 12 Apostles and 70ish Disciplines went out and founded churches from Britain to China and Ethiopia to Russia. The consistent and shared foundations of all these semi-independent communities allowed for a rapid and easy confirmation of the historicity of their faith, as well as a weeding out of edited and unreliable tales. Within a century or two, Christianity had a family of established bishoprics producing yays and nays to the many texts floating around in their days. Breakaways like the Gnostics were shooed, even if such groups were founded by members of those same original witnesses - you may recall the line “some doubted” (Matthew 28:17).
For these reasons, it seems to me a rational thing to state that people can be trusted to preserve their lore, especially if said lore should be counted among the divine.
Flood & Blood.
Flood myths are universal across all culturues. I don’t think any Pagan reader will be upset if I use this to judge their stories, considering the myth of Deucalion’s similarities to Noah. Let’s consider this elephant in the room, Dear Reader. We can imagine that all archeology from before the flood ought to be rendered ruined and garbled, as there would be little to no cultural, religious, or linguistic continuity between the antediluvian peoples and the Noahic peoples who replaced them. Even so, one may imagine that as the likely illiterate and seldom spiteful children of Noah tread through the soggy ruins of those who came before, some may have stumbled upon ancient statue, or reoccupied ancient ruined cities, or recalled some ancient legendary hero, and decided that was their new god - perhaps they even retained the name, or perhaps made a new one.
While we know most of humanity died in the flood, we cannot know to what extent humanity’s artifacts did or did not survive. I’ve even wondered if the waters “prevailing” above the mountains many meters is better understood as the height of the geysers flooding the Earth, rather than the height of the sea. Archeological evidence for a flood is sparse, after all. But archeological evidence for sudden and abrupt terminations of civilization are not.
It’s also worth noting here some possible misunderstandings with genealogies. The ordinary way of reading Genesis literally is to read the age a father “begot” a son, and then his death. However, this is skipping over a unique practice of ancient peoples. Among the Semites, the chronology was known as וְרֵאשִׁ֣ית אוֹנִ֑י , or “The Beginning of Strength”. They don’t actually record the year a son in question is born, but rather when the first-born son was born. All subsequent sons are counted from this date. To the modern individualist reader, this can make genealogies sound like they are recording twins or triplets, but that’s not actually what’s happening. These ancients were not individualists.
Here’s a fairly good example of that: If you read Genesis, you would assume Abraham was born in Terah’s 70th year, because it says that Terah had 3 sons in his 70th year in Genesis 11:26. Genesis 11:32 goes on to say Terah died at 205 years of age in Haran. However, it says in Genesis 12:4 that Abraham left Haran when Abraham was 75. That would indicate Abraham abandoned his father 60 years before his death at 205. Seems kind of cruel, doesn’t it? In fact, it directly contradicts Acts 7:4, which says Abraham only left after Terah died. We are forced to see that Terah did not have 3 sons as triplets when he was 70, but rather that he had his first born at 70th, and then 60 years later Abraham was born.
This 60 year discrepancy is just one example. We have to apply that discrepancy to every single generation from Adam to Jesus.
In fact, Moses is another example of this. According to Numbers 3:27-28, the men of Kohath numbered 8,600. If we assume a 1:1 gender ratio, that’s some 17,200 people. Now, reader, I’d forgive you for forgetting this… but Kohath is Moses’ grandfather. That’s a helluva lot of offspring, even with longer lives. On average that would mean 120 children per generation. Which, to be fair, is totally possible if you have 40 wives. But we don’t really see that many recorded - either children or wives. We’re somewhat forced to assume either a generation - or three - are missing, or the recorded births and marriages are incomplete.
The ordinary date of a flood given from a literal reading is somewhere around 2300 BC. Whether or not you feel this date is right will depend on if you think Abraham is evidence of a normal trend of skipping years, or an exception. I lean more on his being the exception, but you can read Genesis 11:10-26 to figure it out yourself.
When looking through pagan genealogies, this is great! Because it means the seemingly extra generations between characters named in the Bible are simply a more complete genealogy. It may not be wrong or contradictory, but simply more complete.
In Review…
Here’s what you should keep in mind as you read this article:
Names change & multiple people can have the same name. Generations can skip.
Reality need not fully conform to an ideal structure. Broad Strokes vs Pretty Trees.
There needs be a Modus Operandi to move lore into a category of editable or not.
Religious people can and will preserve their lore.
Secular stories can and will be embellished.
Deconstruction can and has moved Theology into Secular.
Stories, once fossilized, are not easily edited
In the Beginning…
Ok, you’ve suffered with my introduction for a few chapters now, but it was important to get all that out of the way. Let’s get into the nits and grits. I’m going to be using the term Knots to explore the thesis question. Knots will be moments to pay attention to with all the aforementioned points. A Knot can be defined as something that cannot be easily resolved or explained - an open contradiction, even - and need to be explained. For these purposes, I have defined several knots:
The Hellenic Knot
The Genesis Knot
The Hittite Knot
The Crete Knot
The Dorian Knot
It’s important to start with the Hellenic knot to show how all the previous lessons come into action when exploring this topic. In truth, The Genesis Knot was the original first one, but I felt it necessary to first get into idea of Hellenism first. The Genesis Knot will explore the original Noahic lineages. The Hittite Knot will explore the transition from great man to god, and the Crete and Dorian Knots will explore how contradictions in that process were resolved.
The Hellenic Knot
The Greeks are considered the canonical mythology of the West. They are some of the oldest foundational tales of Western Civilization, after all. But, what did the Greeks think? Even if we can trust the Pagan to preserve his own mythology, we still must determine what, exactly, they thought about their own mythology, and when they thought that.
When I first became interested in this topic, I thought it an easy task to match Greek gods to ancient biblical kings. Cronus eating his three sons seemed linked to Noah cursing and blessing his three sons. Indeed, the three sons of Cronus seemed parallel to the three sons of Noah. Zeus, who in earliest literature was called d’Yeus Pater, was Yapheth, son of Noah. The names practically sounded the same! Hades was probably Ham, and Poseidon probably Shem. After all, Poseidon’s oldest name form, Po’Sedao, has some slight etymological parallels to Sion, which we in English call Zion - the homeland of the Shem. In fact, in the same way Jewish traditions hold that the three sons of Noah drew lots and divided the Earth between each other, the Greeks say at the end of the great War Against the Titans the three sons of Cronus drew lots and claimed realms of Sky, Sea, and Death, too. It all fit nicely. Everything seemed to align. However, reality is rarely so simple.
In reality, the religious traditions of Ancient Greece are something of an amalgamation of the Dorians, Minoans, Pelasgians, and a handful of Levantine imports from their cousins, the Philistines. Dig a little deeper and this neat little parallelism falls apart fairly quickly. Besides, whistfully matching “this sounds like that” is both lazy and ignores the Christian belief that the languages were confused at Babel. Maybe we can do that with some of the older names, but it really can’t be the rule to go off for all names. Also, there’s a lot of adoptions that mix up the genealogies. We can’t willy-nilly match a bloodlines.
For example, Japheth son of Noah, is traditionally thought of as the father of European classical civilization. You’ve already seen me point out the similarities between Japheth and d’Yeus Pater, the Indo-European term that Zeus originates from - in their native tongues, these names were pronounced Yephet and d’Yespheter respectively, more or less. But it goes deeper than that. Japheth’s son, Javan, has since ancient times been related to Ion, the father of the Ionians. In their native tongues these are spoken as Yawan and Iowon respectively. Also very similar. one of Ion’s sons, Eliseus, is thought to be the ancient king Hellen by means of Elis acquiring an H to become Hellas. This is a common addition when words move into Europe, and you can find it also in words like Ibru, the original word for the Hebrews. Ibru acquired an H to render Hibru, which we spell Hebrew. The reason for these additions is that H has a history of being just a breath, or a spoken pseudo-vowel. Regardless, we see a genealogy here of Noah>Japheth>Javan>Elis - or to Greek ears, Deucalion>Iapetus > Ion > Hellas.
However, The Greeks count their geneology in a near-backwards fashion:
Iapetus>Prometheus>Deucalion>Hellen>Xuthus>Ion. We see here that while the names are the same, at some point there were either additions or subtractions, and a re-arrangement.
If we try to look at what these names mean, it’s a simple move to say Javan means “dove”, or “swift”, in Hebrew, and note Ion means “to go down swiftly”, like a bird does. Easy-peasy, there. Javan is itself a transliteration from the Greek word, and Javan is used as a general term for all Greeks. For this earlier figure, we can be somewhat confident this name is preserved between languages. We can also note Ion’s great grandfather is Deucalion, a parallel of Noah. Deucalion built a ship to survive Zeus’ flood. Indeed, the name itself means pleasant wine and, as you may know, the first thing Noah did after thanking God for surviving that flood was grow a vineyard and get drunk. More Parallels. We can also note Ion’s father, Xuthus, means Sparrow - another bird name. Aeolus, Ion’s uncle, means “moving swift”, like Ion in Hebrew, and having some bird-like ideas. I can also note another name in Ion’s genealogy: Iapetus the titan, a distant ancestor Ion and Deucalion, is fairly obviously a parallel to Japheth - essentially pronounced the same. The Titan Iapetus and the god Zeus essentially share the same name originating from d’Yeus Pater, but that means even if individual characters have biblical parallels, the genealogy starts getting different. There are inserted generations, even maybe a few duplicates. So, we have here the Greek Knot: How do we make sense of these duplicates and insets?
This can be explained, of course, if you believe the Genesis genealogies skip generations. Here, the Greeks fill in the blank. However, if you are a strict literalist, then these are simply inserts of arrogant and prideful kings wanting divine lineages.
We should look at the in-between civilizations to try to determine when and where this occured. Anatolia was home to the Luwians , who were likely ancestors of the Greeks. Traders, for whatever reason, liked switching up letters in their writings of these peoples. Sometimes they are called Luwians, sometimes Nuwians, and the Egyptians specifically called them Ywnians, which seems something closer to Ionians. It’s a bit of a babbling mess, but we’ll manage Dear Reader. The connections go beyond this, but suffice to say, these are Knots to entangle.
For example, in terms of myth, one of the most startling things I’ve found is that the Minoans of Crete do not speak about Zeus as a god, but as a title. Indeed, I’ve found no texts on Zeus from the early Mycaenan period of Crete - at least, none I’ve found. Rather, figures are called sons of Zeus. Later Cretans went so far as to state Zeus had physically died on Crete, which all other Greeks seem to have taken offense at and called an outright lie. We should note this for future discussion: The oldest Greek settlements believe Zeus was physically born and died.
These tales baked in the oven of Greece to produce the loaf we call Classical Hellenism today. Which means we have to go back further to when the ingredients were all separate and identifiable. We should begin with a map here, indicating the wherewithal it all came together through.
This map is of Greece in 2000 BC. Red indicates Neolithic settlements, with black being the “young” cities that developed out of neolithic migrations. The Anatolians can be viewed as comparable in age to the Cretens. You can see, the oldest settlements of the mainline are mostly limited to Mycenae, the eventual conquerors of both - albeit, in time the Dorians of the PIE migration would come to conquer them. Of note here is Tiryns, whose architecture are some of the most well-developed for their ancient age.
The Tirynians had trade with the Minoans of Crete, and artifacts from the Minoans have been found there:
Nearby Mycenae also contains the famous Lion’s Gate, thought to be the oldest monumental sculpture of ancient(er) Greece:
Further south is the similar Treasury of Atreus, which contained a treasure-trove of these ancients:
You can note the rather radically different style from the more-familiar temples and columns of classical Greece. These ancients are thought to have been influenced by Egypt, hence the Pyramid imagery. Indeed, the treasury contains a host of artifacts,s some of Egyptian origin, others of broader European heritage.
All this is to say, these ancient Javanites were quite accomplished and world-traveled. Swift, as their name implies, because they sailed around - heralding from the Genesis narrative that they were the first sailboat makers.
Greek history can be divided up into a few eras. The Initial Minoan and Luwian civilizations, the Mycenaean civilization that subsumed them, and then the later Dorian Invasion marked the arrival of the PIE migrations from the north. Cities like Sparta are generally viewed as the Dorian’s descendants. While cities like Athens are viewed as the descendants of the older, softer, natives. We’ll return to this later.
We’ll leave the Hellenic Knot there, and repeat it here: How shall we resolve these irregularities between genealogy and person?
The Genesis Knot
Let’s take a step back and look at the broader biblical world in Genesis. We’re told God ordered mankind to fill the earth when the Ark opened up. However, it doesn’t seem like anyone actually did that at first. The text lays out a broad stroke for the nations of man, totaling some 70 or so - though not all of them may be genetically descended from the names given. Nimrod, for instance, has no offspring named. Rather, it says he was a great builder of cities and hunter of men. Do note here, hunter seems to imply slaver. Nimrod, perhaps infertile or just not interested in offspring, seems to have kidnapped the offspring of other clans to build his cities. We see here the first instance of globalism, perhaps. Here’s a useful map, which we’ll be adding to later, to help visualize:
Rather than dispersing all at once we learn that in Babel, one of the cities Nimrod built, that mankind decided to build a tower instead. Only after God intervened and confused their languages did they then actually scatter. But were all of Noah’s clans in Babel? Or were they simply a collection of slaves from many clans?
Genesis 10 is helpful in that we learn there were only really three groups that actually obeyed God - either willingly or unwillingly - to go out into the Earth and fill it:
Nimrod, went south to founded his cities - and then no further.
Canaan, who was forced out and fled east
Javan, who went west willingly, and eagerly.
Of all the clans of Noah, we can see it was Japheth’s son, Javan, who was the only one faithful to God’s call to go out and fill the Earth. For it is said:
And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
All the other clans of Noah seemed to have stayed in Babel initially, before being forced out when God halted the Tower. We can’t know for sure if Javan went out before or after this event, however. Perhaps he too initially stayed. We see they were divided by language, so we know they already were confused in speech. But we can’t say for sure if their speech was divided before or after they fled out west - after all, the world can still be of one speech, but a group of friends have their secret code. Or, perhaps some in babel brought new tongues to the already scattered westerners? Who knows. That’s the Knot.
Nonetheless, it was only Javan and his sons who went out, by sea, to far off lands initially.
This is why it is wise to start with the Greeks. The Greeks have some of the oldest writing we have to explore, and their history of maritime exploration and colonization seems to confirm this biblical description of them. Here, again, recall the map of Greece and Anatolia. From here, we ought to have something of an idea of candidates for men who would become deified: Japheth, Javan, Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. Only problem is, only one of these seems similar to Zeus’ older name form, and the rest seem more applicable to region names than god names. Elis is rather similar to Alashiya, the ancient name of Cyprus, however Kittim is also a name used for Cyprus. it makes more sense to view Elis as Hellas. Tarshish has always been a mystery, but like Elis, was sometimes identified with Carthage. Dodanim, also spelled Rodanim, is obviously Rhodes, but could also be the Dorians themselves. None of these, of course, are gods - rather, they are places. Indeed, the confusing nature of the names themselves may hint that the Sons of Javan worked together to build their various island enterprises.
This map is probably not accurate
This is, thus, the Genesis Knot: We don’t really find many divinities in these names, merely place-names. However, we can reliably say that Javan’s offspring were, originally, on the western coast and isles of Anatolia. Japheth, rather absent, has traditionally thought to have gone North - from whence we might see the original PIE migrations. But he could have gone West to settle on Crete, hence their myths of Zeus being an ordinary human who lived and died.
But we’ll leave the Genesis Knot there.
The Hittite Knot
If we understand The Ionians are really Javanites, and that the Luwians/Lydians are themselves something of an alternate name, we at least can dig into their oldest artifacts to start finding divinities and the gradual transformation from great leaders to gods. However, there is one problem. The Luwians were conquered and subjugated by the Hittites for a few centuries, and the Hittites were extremely resistant to syncretism. Multiple sources I’ll leave at the end of this say that Hittites described their religion as “The Thousand gods of Hattusa”. This means that even if a dozen towns had a god by the same name, the Hittites regarded these as 12 individual gods, rather than 1. For the duration of their empire, any deviation in pronouncement of names, or celebration of ceremonies, resulted in the Hittites regarding that as an entirely separate and unique deity, and making a whole new cult in regard to it. The duration of Hittite rule can be regarded as a kind of void, after which great confusion permeated until the time of the Greeks. This complicates things greatly.
There’s also a bit of a problem in regards to who the Hittites were. The city and land itself are described as being founded by Heth, son of Canaan. That would make them Hamite, not Japhetite. However, this is mostly a product of 19th century archeology. When Europeans started archeological adventures in the region, they simply called this people group the Hittites because they were north of Lebanon, and the Bible describes these people as being north of Lebanon. However, the actual Hittite Empire had no formal name for itself initially, and the term Hittite may be speaking only of the remnant states that formed after it fell, which were predominantly Luwianians who had adopted the name Hittite. Here it must be mentioned, even though the Hittites conquered the Luwianians, in time the power of the Hittite Empire shifted towards the Luwianians and they would go on leading the empire. Troy, the great city of Homer’s stories, was one of the prized western cities of this Empire.
To be clear here, the Hittites spoke an Indo-European language. Regardless of who founded Hattusa, the Luwianians would go on to rule the city, meaning that the ultimate lineage here to draw from would be the Javanite line. But, this tug-of-war between the two societies means there’s a tangled up mess between the two that we have to entangle. A knot. Perhaps helpful here is a map to see the gradient between the two.
And, the later Luwianian-led Hittite rump states mentioned in the Bible, can be seen here:
If you’ve read my previous article, the Judaeo-Christian Myth, you know these people had familiar northern European deities like Thor and Odin and wore hammer neckless like the Vikings did 2000 years later. I stated there that, due to the presence of Cyprian metals in Scandinavia at this time, that some kind of trade route clearly existed to the far north through the Black Sea and Eastern European rivers. It’s rather fascinating to see the spread of these cultures and religions so early, but this is important to remember: These people are the intellectual ancestors of the Nordic people. If you think this is impossible, remember that Vikings sailed to Constantinople and Iran through these same routes. Although, this is different from blood relations, of which they likely come through those sons of Japheth who went north through the Caucuses.
We do have many records of their gods, and even at 2000 BC we see many familiar forms. They were primarily as follows:
Tarhunz (Thor): Hammer-carrying thunder god.
Diuod(Zeus): The Sky Father god
Kamrušepa: The wife deity of Diuod, a worker of magic and plants
Arma: The Moon god
Runtiya: The god of the hunt, possibly the child of Diuod
Santa: The god of death, who later became associated as the anger-form of Diuod.
If you’ve read into these topics, you are aware that Thor and Zeus share some relation to each other. Thor’s older name, Perk Unos, is synonymous with Zeus’ lightning bolt, Keraunos. There is some kind of relationship, perhaps akin to father-son, between the two. Although Odin is regarded as the father of Thor in the AD writing we have of the Norse, that’s thousands of years later. In 2000BC, things were a bit different. Odin, which more-or-less is a kind of seer-priest figure, seems a later development.
Diuod, often spelled Tiwad or Tiwaz in Luwianian scholarship, has a title often along with the name: Tati. This means father. You can see here how Ts and Ds often get swapped out, to render daddy instead. Tiwatati is, thus, the Luwianian equivalence of Dyeusphater. Despite being from some 4000 years ago, Phater still means father, and Tati still means Daddy. There has been very little change.
Now, if this is indeed the suspected deification of Jephthah, then you might be quick to assume Tarhunz must be some kind of alternative name for Javan/Ion. But, as we’ve seen before, generations can skip or be irregular to our assumptions. Also, a concern I have with doing this is the differences between pronunciation vs definition. By that I mean: just because Japheth and Dyeusphater sound similar, doesn’t mean they mean the same thing - or that we should assume this would operate the same for other names. We have to remember that language was confused about the 3rd generation out from Noah. After that, it might be better to approach this from the vector of matching the definition of words, rather than the pronunciation. So, if we know Javan means something akin to Dove, or the graceful flapping of sails on ships, and we know the early Greeks associated themselves to these bird and sail terminologies, we at least know to look for this definition, rather than just something that sounds like Javan.
However, Tarhunz remains a bit of a mystery to me. He stands out. His name doesn’t seem to connect to any of Noah’s sons. Remember that. I’ll get into it a few knots later.
The Crete Knot
I mentioned earlier the peculiarities surrounding Creten mythology: Zeus is not a figure in the archeology initially, and when he does show up, he is presented a bit more mortal: Having been born and died on the Island - a story greatly offensive to the mainland.
The language of the region is known as Linear, because it was indeed written in a linear fashion. Linear A remains mostly untranslated, while Linear B seems to not talk about Zeus that much. For instance, we have quite a few names referencing Zeus - Diwo and Diwi, from d’Yeus - but never anything about Zeus himself. Dionysos shows up, whose name references Zeus, but not Zeus himself. Even Diwia, thought to be a female Zeus that would become Dione, but not Zeus himself. Indeed, Athena is originally written as atanadiuja or atanadiwija - Athena, of Zeus. But nothing of the god himself. He has Sanctuaries, to be sure. But no tales in Linear B so much I can find.
Perhaps Zeus was a title, not a god, in these early years? Perhaps meaning Heaven, light, or something. Nonetheless, at some point a figure would be considered the personification of heaven, and thus was “born” Zeus. On Crete there is a cave known as Diktaean, which his thought to be the birthplace of Zeus. He is said to have died at Mt. Yuchtas, where a tomb was built for him. This is recorded in Callimachus’s Hymn to Zeus, ~300BC:
How shall we sing of him – as lord of Dicte, or of Lycaeum? My soul is all in doubt, since debated is his birth. O Zeus, some say that thou wert born on the hills of Ida; others, O Zeus, say in Arcadia; did these or those, O Father lie? “Cretans are ever liars.” Yea, a tomb, O Lord, for thee the Cretans builded; but thou didst not die, for thou art for ever.
This is the Crete Knot: Who was this figure? Why was he regarded as a mortal man who lived and died, and how did the mainland become offended by this older Creten myth?
The mainland came to call this figure Zeus Kretagenes, to specify he was the Creten version, not the immortal mainland Zeus. It has been thought, however, that this might simply be a literary device that shows up in much the same form throughout. But I think this is a bit odd. Much of Minoan myth pertains to the idea of a dying god - be it the Minotaur, or other figures of Minoan lore. It’s worth noting, too, that Zeus was also not the only god given a tomb. At the Temple of Apollo near Mycenae, there was also said to be a tomb to Zeus’ son Dionysos. It appears Apollo was something of a slayer of the gods.
From this we might return to the original claims of Euhemerus. At least some writers seem to have assumed Panchaia was, in fact, Crete.
The Dorian Knot
Greece is thought to have been settled in three waves. The initial settlement by the Ionians (Javan’s kin) occurred around 2000BC, which I’ve covered above. Around 1500BC, the Achaeans settled, who in Greek tradition are considered brotherkin of the Ionians. I’ve skipped over them because their origins are a bit unclear, but that they are brotherkin of the Ionians is sufficient. You can hear how Mycenaeans and Achaeans are related, as well.
The final migration was that of the Dorians, an Indo-European people from the far north, sometimes called Hyperborea. This was around 1200 BC and is regarded by Greek tradition to be an actual military invasion. The Dorians were very successful, displacing many of the peoples of Greece, and eventually founding cities like Sparta. They were great warriors, and their architecture is famous for the simple and functional Doric columns.
They had as their chief patron Deity, Apollo, who I’ve had some great challenge trying to associate with a Son of Noah. Such difficulty, that I no longer think Apollo is a son of Noah. Revelation 9:11, referenced at the start of this article, confirms this. He is no man at all, but rather an angel:
And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
-Revelation 9:11
This angel appears to also be the Angel of Death in Exodus, who is called the Lord’s Destroyer.
Apollo’s ancient name among the Mycenaeans and Minoans was Peryo, the great killer and healer of gods. He seems to be one of the only deities they did not build a tomb for, hinting he is no mere man as well. His great temple at Delphi includes a tomb to Dionysus, a son of Zeus. Homer describes him as a chief god on the side of the Trojans, and there is much suspicion and discomfort from him. He is something of a free radical, doing as he pleases. But above all, he is a great warrior.
Peryo, that ancient form of his name, sounds familiar if you’ve looked up Indo-European divinities. His epithet of Destroyer hints at it too: I think, though I admit I haven’t found much scholarship on it, that Peryo is derived from Perkyon, or Perkwunos. Thor. Apollo is Thor, Dear Reader. The reason why I had trouble finding any matches to the sons of Noah earlier is simple: He isn’t a son of Noah. Rather, he is an Angel. The Angel of Death and plague. Not only that, but a chief deity of the warrior Dorians.
So what’s the Knot if it’s that simple? Well, let me show you something. The war between the Titans and Olympians is standard education. You probably know the Olympians overthrew the Titans. In deeper scholarship, it is thought this represents the conquest of the Dorians over the older Mycenaean civilization. You recall I mentioned the Dorians seem to have been angry that the Myceneans had tombs for the gods, and that they may have been looking for a way to disassociate their gods from the existing pantheon of Mycenaean Greece and its dead divinities. I think there’s a hint to this in the names. For the Titan Iapetus, there is the Olympian Zeus. For the Titan Hyperion, there is the Olympian Apollo. You can do this for most of the Titans and Olympians. They seem to have the same names…
That’s the Knot, Dear Reader. Why are their names the same? Here is my proposed solution: When the Dorians invaded and found the tombs of their gods, they needed a way to dissociate their pantheon with the deceased Mycenaean pantheon. Their solution was some kind of overthrow of those gods, and now their gods were in control - even though they were basically the same gods, divergent from the evolution of the Doric accent apart from the mainland Creten and Achaean accent.
Interestingly enough, this shows up in the writings of Plutarch. When he took up complaints with Euhemerus’s Panchaia theory, he seems to include reference to the Creten tombs of the gods as derived from thinkers like Euhemerus and warns against entertaining it:
By obliterating the gods of our belief and converting them all alike into names of generals, admirals, and kings, who, forsooth, lived in very ancient times and are recorded in inscriptions written in golden letters at Panchon, which no foreigner and no Greek had ever happened to meet with, save only Euhemerus. He, it seems, made a voyage to the Panchoans and Triphyllians, who never existed anywhere on earth and do not exist!
It is worth noting here that Plutarch is somewhat arguing with feign ignorance. For one, he himself proposed the death of the gods in his De Defectu Oraculorum, and secondly he would be aware that Euhemerus’s theory was written in a speculative format, with the Creten Mycenaean tombs being far older than Euhemerus himself.
What say you, Dear Reader? Shall we try to untangle all these knots?
Untangling the Knots.
I propose, Dear Reader, that these knots can be untangled in the following metamyth:
Initially, Japheth came to rule over Crete, which was populated possibly by Caphtorites. Javan occupied the Anatolian coast, and his sons occupied Islands like Cyprus and Rhodes. Some of the sons of Japheth went north of the Caucuses, beginning the PIE migrations, who in time one branch became the Dorians.
The Angel Apollo was something of a guardian angel for these early lineages, and in time his memory became deified by the Dorians. In the Aegean, he became asociated with Death itself, and as the elder Sons of Noah died, he was viewed as their slayer.
At some point Japheth died in Crete, and his civilization became the Minoans. A son of his died on the mainland near Mycenae. Apollo, the angel of Death, was viewed as their slayer and became an important deity in their society. Javan’s kingdom became the powerful Luwians, and some of his relatives formed the Hittites and later the Mycenaeans/Achaeans. Rhodes and Cyprus became neighboring kingdoms.
Later on, the PIE migrations arrived in Greece, who by this point were worshipping their father Japheth as the god, d’Yeuspater, and Apollo as their great warrior god. When they found the tombs of some of these divinities among the Mycenaeans, they were offended and tried to differentiate him as someone else, Iapetus. The Titans being overthrown by the Olympians was an attempt to narrate this.
Greek Civilization begins with its wars between Troy (The Javanites) and Mycenae and Crete (The Japhethities). Its end marked the conclusion of those myths and the beginning of proper Classical Greek polytheism, with the tribes of the Dorians, the Achaeans, and the Aeolians forming the body politic of the Aegean.
This makes the most sense to me, and explains the duplicate names and genealogical differences, as well as the not-so-human myths involving Apollo as something of a special case.
This is only a brief overview, and doing this for the other gods can be a fun exercise for your own time.
The Ancient Monotheists
For this final section, I want to take a detour. Thoughts of the divine among the Pagans had its sways, with some generations reducing the gods to mere mortal heroes of a Supreme Creator God, to those generations that viewed them as a divine perfect pantheon without any creator at all. While Panchaia Theory explains many things for the Christian, I think here it is worth mentioning that there have always been Greek Monotheists living on the peripheral of these wars and myths I went over above. It’s worth presenting them as something akin to an alternative parallel lorekeeping among the philosophers, which was kept semi-secret for the learned seeking deeper truths.
Socrates, you may know, was murdered by his city for questioning the gods and corrupting the youth - at least according to the civil authorities. His student Plato, no doubt learning how to avoid a similar fate, began to use coded language thereafter. In fact, we find a rather curious passage in his Second Epistle:
There is also another matter … which he most certainly must explain, as you were puzzled about it when you sent him. For, according to his report, you say that you have not had a sufficient demonstration of the doctrine concerning the nature of “the First.” Now I must expound it to you in a riddling way in order that, should the tablet come to any harm “in folds of ocean or of earth,” he that readeth may not understand.
The matter stands thus: Related to the King of All are all things, and for his sake they are, and of all things fair He is the cause. And related to the Second are the second things and related to the Third the third. About these, then, the human soul strives to learn, looking to the things that are akin to itself,
…
I said, however, that I had never met with any other person who had made this discovery; on the contrary most of the trouble I had was about this very problem. So then, after you had either, as is probable, got the true solution from someone else, or had possibly (by Heaven's favor) hit on it yourself, you fancied you had a firm grip on the proofs of it, and so you omitted to make them fast; thus your view of the truth sways now this way, now that, round about the apparent object; whereas the true object is wholly different. Nor are you alone in this experience; on the contrary, there has never yet been anyone, I assure you, who has not suffered the same confusion at the beginning, when he first learnt this doctrine from me; and they all overcome it with difficulty, one man having more trouble and another less, but scarcely a single one of them escapes with but little.
…
Beware, however, lest these doctrines be ever divulged to uneducated people. For there are hardly any doctrines, I believe, which sound more absurd than these to the vulgar, or, on the other hand, more admirable and inspired to men of fine disposition. For it is through being repeated and listened to frequently for many years that these doctrines are refined at length, like gold, with prolonged labor. But listen now to the most remarkable result of all. Quite a number of men there are who have listened to these doctrines—men capable of learning and capable also of holding them in mind and judging them by all sorts of tests—and who have been hearers of mine for no less than thirty years and are now quite old; and these men now declare that the doctrines that they once held to be most incredible appear to them now the most credible, and what they then held most credible now appears the Opposite. So, bearing this in mind, have a care lest one day you should repent of what has now been divulged improperly. The greatest safeguard is to avoid writing and to learn by heart.
-Second Epistle of Plato
From what I can tell, Plato was something like unto a Trinitarian. Many have said early Christianity may have developed the concept right out of Plato’s theories. Some Pagans, however, will claim this is an impersonal god. A first-mover with little more doing in the universe. However, this is not correct. Plato expands on this divine being in another place, showing him to be a conscious being with awareness of the world, and thoughts to share about it. While attempting to recollect the various histories of the Greeks pertaining to their gods, Plato suggested that if man is the child of gods, then the gods are likely the children of a singular supreme God. Whether fabricated from his own thinking or harmonized from various regional myths, Plato writes something of a creation story:
The knowledge of the other gods is beyond us, and we can only accept the traditions of the ancients, who were the children of the gods, as they said; for surely they must have known their own ancestors. Although they give no proof, we must believe them as is customary. They tell us that Oceanus and Tethys were the children of Earth and Heaven; that Phoreys, Cronos, and Rhea came in the next generation, and were followed by Zeus and Here, whose brothers and children are known to everybody.
When the Father who begat the world saw the image which he had made of the Eternal Gods moving and living, he rejoiced; and in his joy resolved, since the archetype was eternal, to make the creature eternal as far as this was possible.
When all of them, both those who show themselves in the sky, and those who retire from view, had come into being, the Creator addressed them thus:—‘Gods, sons of gods, my works, if I will, are indissoluble. That which is bound may be dissolved, but only an evil being would dissolve that which is harmonious and happy. And although you are not immortal you shall not die, for I will hold you together. Hear me, then:—Three tribes of mortal beings have still to be created, but if created by me they would be like gods. Do ye therefore make them; I will implant in them the seed of immortality, and you shall weave together the mortal and immortal, and provide food for them, and receive them again in death.’ Thus he spake, and poured the remains of the elements into the cup in which he had mingled the soul of the universe. They were no longer pure as before, but diluted; and the mixture he distributed into souls equal in number to the stars, and assigned each to a star—then having mounted them, as in a chariot, he showed them the nature of the universe, and told them of their future birth and human lot. They were to be sown in the planets, and out of them was to come forth the most religious of animals, which would hereafter be called man.
-Timaeus and other sources
Plato wrote these things, maybe with some knowledge of Levantine mythology, maybe not. Regardless, I believe these are fragments from the original tales Japheth and Javan were telling their children and tribes. I think we see here something of an afterglow of what was originally a holy and faithful Greek people, which after the Dorian invasion became more Polytheistic and cultic. The line between Pagan and Christian here is blurred. In fact, some churches maintain Plato was saved by these confessions, and Jesus scooped him out of death when he went through Hades between his death and resurrection. Fun to think about, but not clear.
And so, Dear Reader, that is my writing on Panchaia Theory. I hope this helps you exploring the history of man, and how the sons of Noah established civilizations, and in turn were deified by those civilizations over several generations. I could write more - much more - but I hope this suffices for now.
Cheers!
"where there is one king and ruler, God, who has under his jurisdiction the beginning and middle and end of everything, and travels round and does everything in a regular way in accordance with nature; and in his wake to punish all transgressions of the divine law follows Justice, whom all men naturally invoke in dealing with one another as fellow citizens." -Plato
Below you can find further reading and sources on this topic, as well as a link to the original Judaeo-Christian Myth Article.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0063%3Achapter%3D1%3Asection%3D1
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3296086
https://sites.utexas.edu/scripts/files/2020/06/2004-TGP-LinearBSources.pdf
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/plutarch/moralia/isis_and_osiris*/b.html
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/23639/23639-h/23639-h.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Lyric_Poets
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.236319/page/n325/mode/2up
https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/26908182-complete-works-of-plutarch
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1572/1572-h/1572-h.htm
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F2vSEzkaEAA3DXc?format=jpg&name=large
https://batesca.tripod.com/kingship.htm
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0164%3Aletter%3D2%3Asection%3D312d
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.%20Laws%20886c&lang=original
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_Oracles
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
All those mythical paradise Islands are America. In every major age America is discovered, colonized by diverse tribes, and destroyed by diversity, forgotten except in myth; and then it all repeats again.
"And yet… Isn’t it all a bit dragged, Dear Reader? If Zeus lived 5000 years ago, why wasn’t he viewed as less divine 2000 years ago, or even 3000 years ago? Why is it in these past 2000 years, Caesar and Hercules have not arisen into new gods who overthrew Zeus, like Zeus overthrew the older Titan gods to Tartarus, or the Chaos gods before them? Simply put, there isn’t a modus operandi to do that - at least not anymore since the Christianization of Europe."
There's also the matter of Octavian dying at 75 like a normal modern while presumably Japheth had a lifespan of several centuries same as his brother.