I heard Nathaniel Jeanson claim that in his recent debate with Dennis Venema. He said Eve was basically a female clone of Adam. (Though it sounds like he has said something different in published work.) I have learned in these discussions never to assume something is too weird for some people to believe it.
1 Like
Thanks Christy for your interest.
The declaration that brings the original sin in relation with the issue of “polygenism” is formulated by Pope Pius XII in his Letter Encyclical Humani generis (1950) as follows:
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.
When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own [Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4].
In this declaration the exclusion of “polygenism” is formulated very carefully under the condition that there is no way of reconciling “such an opinion” with the Teaching of the Church regarding original sin. If this condition is not fulfilled, then doors remain open. This was stressed by Joseph Ratzinger (today Pope emeritus Benedict XVI) in his Münster Lectures as earlier as 1964: “With this text a door is in principle quite clearly opened”; what is important for the Church is not the claim of the hominization in one couple but the claim that all human beings became guilty in their original state; “monogenism is assumed only in function of this theological statement”.
Accordingly, the only thing that the papal Encyclical says “Catholic faithful cannot deny in any way” is the “Teaching of the Church with regard to original sin” as stated in the Canones 1-4, 5th Session of the Council of Trent, that is, that “original sin” means a fallen state (peccatum originale originatum) and because of it all human persons require salvation, and to save us the Second Person of the Holy Trinity became a man, Jesus Christ. But the Magisterium does not state that the genetic origin of all humans from a primal couple (“monogenism”) is essential for “the state of original sin” and leaves open the possibility of “polygenic” origin if this is supported by science.
The final outcome of Humani generis is that one should not deduce original sin and Redemption from ‘Adam and Eve’, but resort to the primeval single couple only if there is no other way of explaining how the first personal sin “is passed on to all”. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself has suggested that other explanations are possible and proposed his “relational damage” model (1986, 1995, 2014). This proposal is quite close to the Homo divinus model as proposed by Denis Alexander, Sam Berry, and Graeme Finlay. My own explanation being discussed in this forum further develops these models to avoid lateral transmission of sin through sort of “spiritual contamination” from sinners to non-sinners.
In my view these facts regarding Humani generis may help to correct misinterpretations as those of authors like Jerry Coyne.
2 Likes
Just want to make sure I understand this correctly. It sounds like the Catholic church would not oppose an interpretation of Genesis that regarded “Adam” as a corporate symbol of “mankind,” as long as the connection to actual sins/natural generation/original sin is maintained in accordance with Church teaching. Is that a fair statement?
Jay, I think your statement is perfectly fair.
I quote Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI:
“In the Bible this word [‘Adam’] expresses the unity of the whole creature ‘man’, so that one can speak of the biblical idea “corporate personality”. So if Jesus is called ‘Adam’, this implies that he is intended to gather the whole creature ‘Adam’ in himself.” [Introduction to Christianity, Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 2004, p. 236].
Catholic Magisterium (Councils and Popes) about original sin consists of the following unquestionable claims:
-
To reach Salvation humans require Redemption by Jesus Christ.
-
Moral evil can never be caused by God.
-
Everyone is free NOT to sin.
Genetic descent of all humans from a single couple is not a definite Magisterial Declaration, as the formulations of Humani generis clearly show.
1 Like
Thanks for the clarification. Obviously, I am ignorant of the finer points of Catholic doctrine. Is it okay to admit ignorance on these forums? 
Only if you want to be seen as weak and vulnerable. The forum predators will see you as easy game, and your only hope will be to either develop protective coloration and lurk at the edges or perhaps start spewing venomous verbage, in which case your life here will be short lived.
4 Likes
Since we have reached agreement that in any case “written law” provides unquestionable evidence of primeval humans created in the image of God, let us now discuss the evidence you propose:
My first comment on this:
a) Consider the recent discovered Homo sapiens remains from Morocco dated to 315,000 years ago (Nature, NYT):
We cannot exclude they had “unwritten codes of behavior”.
Thus according to your proposed criteria they were in the image of God.
b) Consider evidence about Neanderthals:
-
Constructions dated 180,000 years ago reveal social organization (Nature, National Geographic).
-
Intentioned burial and burial-rituals are attested at 50,000-40,000 years ago (NPR, New Scientist, National Geographic).
According to your criteria Neanderthals should be considered in the image of God as well.
But you have no evidence that they did or they had any other indications of modern human behavior so they could be excluded.
Possibly. We did interbreed with Neanderthals. There are some indications that they had some traits of modern human behavior just not all of them. I would put them in the catagory of we just don’t know enough to be able to say for sure. And I am ok with that.
Now let’s discuss why you so steadfastly refuse to address the evidence that humans 50,000 years ago where no different from you and me and yet you want to make them “different” to keep to you 3,500 BC date.
Regarding this “evidence” I argue actually in the same line you argue regarding Neanderthals:
There are some indications that they had some traits of behavior humans have today just not all of them, in particular writing, which is the clear-cut behavior proving capability for enacting laws and distinguishing humanity from non-human animals.
Accordingly: I would put humans 50,000 years ago also in the category of “we just don’t know enough to be able to say for sure”.
And so I conclude: “To be able to say for sure” we can’t help keeping to the 3,500 BC date.
And I guess my last question in this is going to be, “So what?” What does a date that might be right or might not be right give you?
As for me the date gives me quite a bit of insight!
You agreed that the discovery of writing at about 3,500 BC gives us “the latest date for saying humans were created in the image of God”. This means we have found a clear behavior distinguishing humanity from non-human animals. And the reason is that writing allows humans to enact laws and contracts.
Your position of doubt about whether Neanderthals were or not in God’s image shows that other behaviors do not allow you to distinguish definitely human morality from animal proto-morality.
The capability for enacting laws makes it clear which is the aim of evolution: To bring about a living form which is sharply distinguished from all the others so that assigning rights becomes possible. Thereby deletion of intermediate varieties becomes the main definition of evolution. Species originate by means of natural deletion.
The date of 3,500 BC implies that any explanation of Christian faith and interpretation of Scripture has to fit with the evolutionary fact that at this time there were about 14 millions of Homo sapiens individuals on earth.
Astonishingly this fact not only does not lead to a conflict with Faith or Scripture, but gives us a key to understand them more deeply.
As we have seen, we can now explain coherently the enigmatic episode of the Sons of God, and this, on its turn, allows us to explain the Flood narrative as the achievement of the creation of human kind in the image of God.
I think this is an important result of all the discussion we are having in this thread, and I am most thankful to you and to all who have contributed.
In my view another important point related to the insights we have won here is the question of who Melchizedek is. To open this discussion I would like to claim that on the basis of Scripture it seems unquestionable that:
Melchizedek was a real historical person.
Thanks in advance for giving your opinion on this.
It is the combination of a variety of behaviors. Having only one or two would not count. All of them were present by about 50,000 BC.
Pretty sure the biologists wouldn’t agree with this. Ring species are a good example of how you can have the creation of new species without losing the original species.
The date of {insert different date here} implies that any explanation of Christian faith and interpretation of Scripture has to fit with the evolutionary fact that at this time there were about {insert any number greater than 2} of Homo sapiens individuals on earth.
So I see nothing to be gained by insisting on 3,500 BC.
I don’t recall anyone who claimed that he wasn’t a real person. I am sure you will have some examples which you could use to start a new thread.
2 Likes
I detect the presence of many of the themes you are exploring (here on this thread) right here at this thread!!!
Bill: Your objection with “Ring species” helps to clarify in which sense “deletion of species” is crucial for evolution of humanity:
“Ring species” show that a continuum of varieties is in principle possible, where each variety interbreeds with the others nearby. As you very well suggest, the two extremes of the ring would appear as two different species if all intermediate varieties had disappeared.
This means that a similar continuum had been in principle possible between modern humans and great apes, had extinction of all the intermediate varieties never happened. Why did these intermediate varieties disappear? The existence of “Ring species” confirms that this question cannot be answered by biological means alone, in particular the mechanism of “survival of the fittest”.
However it is plain that by provoking the disappearance of all intermediate species between modern humans and chimpanzees, natural selection worked in a way that made it possible to have a sharp distinction between the human species and all other extant forms of life, even the genetically closest one. If all the extinct ancestors were still alive, then there would be a complete continuum of “bodies” filling the gaps between humans and other mammals. The ascription of “human rights” would be a question of arbitrary decision, and racism would become rampant.
In this light the extinction of intermediate varieties between humans and chimpanzees appears like an effect that is highly useful to the end of founding a coherent human moral and legal order: “Deletion of species” is not purposeless, but serves as the means to bring about the human species which could be guided by moral rules and law.
When you state that the extremes of a “Ring species” are like two different species, you are defining species outgoing from the situation as it is today, that is, as a notion that characterizes humanity as distinct from all other living forms.
It is helpful to place Noah in the proper time and place. He was a Proto-Saharan ruler in the R1b haplogroup. The Proto-Saharan rulers kept personal menageries of exotic animals. The oldest known zoological collection was found during the 2009 excavations at Nekhen on the Nile. (Nekhen is also the oldest known site of Horite Hebrew worship.) The royal menagerie dates to about 3500 BC and included hippos, elephants, baboons and wildcats.
There is only one place on earth where the people claim the land to be that of Noah, that is Borno in the region of Lake Chad. The word has a double meaning: “Land of Noah” and “Flood of Noah” (the Dinka/Nuer word for flood is “bor”). Climate studies and anthropological studies of the rulers of this region confirm a time of flooding.
Molecular genetics also confirms the Biblical data that points to the cradle of modern languages being between Lake Chad (Noah’s homeland) and the Nile Valley. See this from the European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication 26 March 2014; doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.41
Y-chromosome E haplogroups: their distribution and implication to the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralism
Eyoab I Gebremeskel and Muntaser E Ibrahim
Archeological and paleontological evidences point to East Africa as the likely area of early evolution of modern humans. Genetic studies also indicate that populations from the region often contain, but not exclusively, representatives of the more basal clades of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome phylogenies. Most Y-chromosome haplogroup diversity in Africa, however, is present within macrohaplogroup E that seem to have appeared 21 000–32 000 YBP somewhere between the Red Sea and Lake Chad. The combined analysis of 17 bi-allelic markers in 1214 Y chromosomes together with cultural background of 49 populations displayed in various metrics: network, multidimensional scaling, principal component analysis and neighbor-joining plots, indicate a major contribution of East African populations to the foundation of the macrohaplogroup, suggesting a diversification that predates the appearance of some cultural traits and the subsequent expansion that is more associated with the cultural and linguistic diversity witnessed today. The proto-Afro-Asiatic group carrying the E-P2 mutation may have appeared at this point in time and subsequently gave rise to the different major population groups including current speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralist populations.
Numbers in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible are largely symbolic. BIBLICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: Number Symbolism in the Bible
1 Like
Thanks George for this hint. I refer to the 3rd scenario proposed Loren Haarsma in the thread you refer to:
Adam and Eve as a pair of recent representatives of all humanity:
Somewhere between forty thousand and eight thousand years ago, God specially selected a pair of individuals to receive special revelation and to act as representatives (but not ancestors) of all human beings. They disobeyed God and so fell into sin in a concentrated historical event. Because they sinned as representatives of all humanity, all of humanity fell into sin. The opportunity for the rest of humanity to receive additional spiritual gifts and to enter into a state of sinless grace before God was lost.[2]
As quoted by Loren Haarsma in Reference [2], this is basically the model Homo divinus endorsed by Denis Alexander.
My explanation can be considered a further development of this model while trying to formulate coherently the notion of “representatives”:
As repeatedly said, according to Christian faith we accept the main principle that:
Adam and Eve were free NOT to sin.
Thus the question arises:
What would have happened, if Adam and Eve had not sinned and generations had passed before the arrival of the first sin “in a concentrated historical event”?
Had Adam and Eve been the only “representatives of all human beings”, and had the first sinner (living generations later) not been such a representative, then the first sin would not have provoked that “the state of grace before God was lost” for all humans.
This conclusion would contradict another main principle of Christian faith:
To reach Salvation all humans need Redemption by Jesus Christ.
To avoid this oddity I accept:
-
The first sinner acted as “representative of all humanity”, even if he/she was not the first human person selected by God “to receive special revelation”. In this sense we all sinned in the first sinner.
-
All human persons coming into existence after the first sin lack “the state of original grace and righteousness”, that is are generated in the “state of disobedience” (so called “state of original sin”) according to Romans 11:32.
Alice, this is very interesting. I am curious on your thoughts on Gobekli Tepe in Turkey showing an advanced society as far back as 11600 bp. Some are relating this Gobekli Tepe site to the Book of Enoch and Enoch the great grandfather of Noah.
The priests of Göbekli Tepe wore leopard skins, as was the practice of the Nilotic ruler-priests. See the detail below from a painting on the walls of Göbekli Tepe. This archaic temple was built under the direction of one of the “mighty men of old” (Genesis 6:4). They are described as heroes and men of renown. They constructed temples, palaces, fortified shrine cities (“high places”), stone tombs (tumuli) and pyramids. The oldest section of I Enoch - “The Watchers” - dates only to about 300 BC. Enoch, the great grandfather of Noah, is named after other Enochs in his ancestry. Enoch is a royal title.
