Did Neanderthals have souls?

[bufboston]

re:
" I certainly do not purport to know God’s classification with regard to human beings. However, I just wanted to emphasize the seemingly inevitable conclusion from known evidence, from both science and religion. Here is what we do know with much certainty.

1. God created Adam and Eve, who are the first humans created in God’s image.
2. Science dictates that Neanderthals are on a dead branch in the human family tree, hence they do not descend from Adam and Eve.
3. Given the above two pieces of evidence, it is safe to conclude that Neanderthals were either created before Adam and Eve, or created after Adam and Eve but not descendants of Adam and Eve.
4. If Neanderthals were created before Adam and Eve, that certainly means they’re not human, and hence do not possess souls.
5. If Neanderthals were created after Adam and Eve, we already established that they do not descend from Adam and Eve, so that also renders them not human. "

---

I was wondering what scientific evidence you are referring to with regard to the actual existence of Adam and Eve.

Scientists believe that homo neanderthalis and homo sapien sapien interbred, so technically this branch of humans is not dead. As for skepticism of DNA evidence, if you read Genesis as a history book, then skepticism sort of makes sense, I guess.

Scientists also think neanderthals were human; the taxonomy works this way, if your Latino species name has a ‘homo’ in it, then you are a homo, or as the anglo saxons say, human.

When thinking about the older scripture of the canon, it can be useful to remember that for +/- 3,000 years before the birth of Jesus, these stories were under the custodial care of the Jews and the religion of Judaism, a religion to which Jesus and the members of the initial Jesus community of course belonged. If you’ve ever known a religious jew, they would probably tell you that no jew older than say, 6, has ever interpreted these stories literally, ever (look up Midrash). Of course there are lots of Christians who also interpret these stories as myth, which is not to say false, but rather having a poetic truth which transcends the binary, rather uninteresting realm of understanding based on quantifiableness; indeed from this perspective a literal interpretation has the potential to blind us to the actual beauty and meaning of the story, meaning which can impact us significantly.

As for the Pope’s treatise on Adam, that’s his opinion. If he really wanted to get my attention, he would have said it ex cathedra.

 

[sojo]

Scientifically, I highly doubt that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans, at least not to any significant extent. No one has found any conclusive evidence to date that would indicate cross-species interbreeding. The fact that some modern humans may have some features that are generally associated with Neanderthals is not scientific evidence that one species derives from the other; they may simply be manifestations of dormant genes that came from our ancestors, which can be any species in the genus homo.

Modern science has pretty recently confirmed that there is quite a bit of Neatherthal DNA in modern humans. This confirms that they were a sub-species and not a different species of modern humans and did indeed interbreed with “modern” humans.

What no one mentioned that I can see (and I did skim a bit of this) is that archeologists tell us that the Neanderthals buried their dead (which most or all pre-human species did not), and they apparently buried them with flowers indicating some form of religion or belief in the afterlife.

So I vote “yes” - they had human souls.

The DNA studies are very interesting, by the way. Some races have more Neanderthal DNA remnants than others due to migration patterns of the two groups (Homo Sapien Sapiens and Homo Sapien Neanderthalensis). There is less Neanderthal interbreeding in Africa then in the cold climates of Europe, for example.

 

[rmtracey]

if you believe in adam and eve then you will believe anything.
genesis, along with the rest of the bible is mythology.
God gave you a brain with which to think.
everything ever created has a soul. or noone has a soul. how can any man, pope, or otherwise know what God thinks.
Neanderthals interbred with homo sapiens. maybe their offspring only had half a soul.!

 

[Hokomai]

The Catholic Adam and Eve doctrine is extremely hard to a) understand and b) reconcile with facts now known abut human descent (and yes, I have read it, and no I am not confusing the Church position with creationists’). if someone wanted to reconcile known human descent facts with a real Adam and Eve, they would simply have to say that there were two people, ancestors of us all, who were somehow responsible for sinning, originally. But that is not, as I understand it, the Catholic position, as it insists there be no other ancestors in that generation.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

God completely destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, so it is certainly within the realm of possibility that God completely destroyed the Neanderthal species/sub-species/whatever for a definite reason.

They seemed to be doing fine, and then they vanished. Personally, I like to think they had a good run, and lived as well as they could. I’d be very pleased to share heaven with them.

I’ll bet they’ll have some great hunting stories.

 

[Lochias]

Nope; by definition, “animals” are beings possessing a soul. “Anima” is the Latin term for soul. The Neanderthal were animals, as are we, since they breathed, moved, etc. Therefore they had a soul.

The Church teaches that the “animal soul” is not sutained beyond death, while the human soul, is. Basically the difference is that the human soul expresses a cognitive mind; which, of course, leaves no fossil traces. Therefore the possible eternal life for neanderthals must remain an open question.

ICXC NIKA.

Aquinas taught this, not the Church in a definitive manner. It is another of the areas in which the Church has not made a definitive statement.

 

[EasterJoy]

First off, let us make it axiomatic that God knows what it is to be “sons and daughters of Adam and Eve” in an ultimate sense, and just consider the two separate possibilities that this leaves.

If these Neanderthals were “sons and daughters of Adam and Eve” in that ultimate sense meant by Divine Providence, then yes, of course, they have immortal souls. Their knowledge of the One True God is lost to history, but fully known to God. They are fully brothers and sisters, earlier versions of ourselves, and were redeeemed under the same terms as all who went to the grave before the Incarnation of Christ.

But let us confront the possibility that Neanderthals are an intelligent species with free will and capable of moral understanding, but not a human species such that they are “sons and daughters of Adam and Eve”, whatever that means in an ultimate sense.

I would think this falls under a heading similar to that of alien species, in this case meaning intelligent species that God was pleased to create on other planets. This is an excerpt from an interview with Fr. Jose Gabriel Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory concerning the problem of intelligent life other than our own:

…

***Question: **But the book of Genesis speaks of earth, of animals, of man and woman. Does this exclude the possibility of the existence of other worlds or living beings in the universe?

Fr. Funes: I think that that possibility exists. Astronomers believe that the universe consists of hundreds of billions of galaxies, and each of these consists of hundreds of billions of stars. Many of them, or almost all of them, could have planets. How could we rule out that life has also developed elsewhere? Astrobiology is a branch of astronomy that studies this very topic, and it has made a lot of progress over the last few years. When we examine the light-spectra of the stars and planets, we can quickly determine the elements of their atmospheres – the so-called “biomarkers” – and understand whether or not there are conditions for the birth and development of life. Furthermore, there could in theory be lifeforms even without oxygen or hydrogen.

Question: Do you refer also to beings similar to us, or even more evolved?

Fr. Funes: It’s possible. However, so far we haven’t got any proof. But in such a big universe, this hypothesis can’t be excluded.

**Question: **And that wouldn’t be a problem for our faith?

**Fr. Funes: **I don’t think so. Just like there is an abundance of creatures on earth, there could also be other beings, even intelligent ones, that were created by God. That doesn’t contradict our faith, because we cannot put boundaries to God’s creative freedom. As St. Francis would say, when we consider the earthly creatures to be our “brothers and sisters”, why couldn’t we also talk about a “extraterrestrial brother"? He would still be part of creation.

Question: And what about redemption?

**Fr. Funes: **Let’s borrow the image from the gospel about the lost sheep. The shepherd leaves the 99 of the sheepfold to search for the one that got lost. Let’s imagine that in this universe there are 100 sheep, corresponding to the different forms of creatures. We who belong to the human race, could very well be the lost sheep, the sinners that need the shepherd. Got has become man in Jesus to save us. In that way, even when other intelligent beings exist, it’s not said that they would need redemption. They might have stayed in full friendship with their Creator.

Question: I insist: when they would, on the contrary, be sinners, would redemption also be possible for them?

**Fr. Funes: **Jesus incarnated once and for all. The incarnation is a unique and non-repeatable event. However, I am certain that they too, in one way or another, would have the possibility to experience God’s mercy, just like we men have.

Read more: universetoday.com/14262/vatican-astronomer-says-its-ok-to-believe-in-et/#ixzz20WQ0eQfo*

…

In other words, if it pleased God to give Neanderthals immortal souls and free will, it would be within the powers and nature of Divine Providence to deal justly, mercifully, and in all love. They could have been innocent, like the angels, and not in need of reconciliation with God, or they could have been fallen, in which case they would be dealt with according to the nature of an all-loving and all-merciful God. They would not, however, have been blessed with a separate instance of the Incarnation–not unless it was identical to the Incarnation and Death of Jesus of Nazareth in the same way that every Mass is the same Sacrifice as the unique Sacrifice on Calvary. The Incarnation of the Son of God was a unique event in the history of the universe, but we need to know better than to put limits on the creativity of God, particularly in the area of pursuing souls. (Although God is bound by neither space or time, there is no reason to believe that anything remotely like that happened. I am saying only that it would not exceed the boundaries of the nature of God as revealed to us to accomplish such a thing.)

Above all, let us remember what the Lord said when posed with a hypothetical about someone else:
When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus said to him, “What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me.”** John 21:21-22**

This is an interesting question as a thought experiment, but in the end it is not a concern of ours. We do not need to worry, but just to follow the Lord.

 

[thewanderer]

Aquinas taught this, not the Church in a definitive manner. It is another of the areas in which the Church has not made a definitive statement.

Well… its not really a question for the Church to decide. It all depends on what you mean by soul. What Aquinas, and Aristotle for that matter, meant was simply the principle of life. Now all living things have a principle of life or else they wouldn’t be alive. So all living things have a soul in this sense. In the case of men it is an immaterial and spiritual principle, in the case of other living things it is not. If you define the word ‘soul’ differently then sure, you might be able to say animals etc don’t have souls, but if all you mean is the principle by which they are alive… its kinda hard to deny that one.

 

[zenith15]

So…

Are Catholics required to believe then that Adam and Eve were a real, living, flesh and blood couple, created literally as the Bible says, the first humans ever on earth? It’s not an allegory or a parable or a more simple way of explaining creation?

 

[Hokomai]

So…

Are Catholics required to believe then that Adam and Eve were a real, living, flesh and blood couple, created literally as the Bible says, the first humans ever on earth? It’s not an allegory or a parable or a more simple way of explaining creation?

As I understand the teaching (please correct me if I am wrong); red bit yes, but no you don’t have to believe they were the first, or created in the way the Bible says, and you are free to believe the story about them as metaphorical. So there is no need for a Catholic to literally believe in talking snakes.

 

[EasterJoy]

As I understand the teaching (please correct me if I am wrong); red bit yes, but no you don’t have to believe they were the first, or created in the way the Bible says, and you are free to believe the story about them as metaphorical. So there is no need for a Catholic to literally believe in talking snakes.

*Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390). *

Catholic Answers tract “Adam, Eve, and Evolution”
catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

 

[rmtracey]

God gave us brains, and expected us to use them.
Evolution is a scientific fact. That means that we all have gradually evolved from the first bit of living matter. Early humans tried to explain the incomprehensible in the best way they could. This is the origin of the bibles , the torah, the koran.
If you wish to ignore this and believe that Adam and Eve were the beginning of the only humans with souls, then you will have to accept that a little bit of incest must have been involved. And since it is also a scientific fact that neanderthals interbred with homo sapiens, then the offspring either did or did not have a soul, depending on your opinion re neanderthals. God is not stupid, and I cannot accept that he thinks catholics are any better than protestants , or that either are any better than jews or muslims or neanderthals or any other progenitor. Nor can I accept that anything the pope says is any more credible than anything that an intelligent atheist might say. Does that make me less of a catholic

iDoes that make me less of a catholic.

 

[Lochias]

Well… its not really a question for the Church to decide. It all depends on what you mean by soul. What Aquinas, and Aristotle for that matter, meant was simply the principle of life. Now all living things have a principle of life or else they wouldn’t be alive. So all living things have a soul in this sense. In the case of men it is an immaterial and spiritual principle, in the case of other living things it is not. If you define the word ‘soul’ differently then sure, you might be able to say animals etc don’t have souls, but if all you mean is the principle by which they are alive… its kinda hard to deny that one.

I’m not denying the nature of a material soul; really, I’m denying that such souls will not be seen again after the End Times. The Bible itself is chock-full of references to our Father knowing each and every living thing, and that all things await the New Heaven and New Earth.

There is no “end” for God’s creation; nothing escapes His sight.

 

[EasterJoy]

God gave us brains, and expected us to use them.
Evolution is a scientific fact. That means that we all have gradually evolved from the first bit of living matter. Early humans tried to explain the incomprehensible in the best way they could. This is the origin of the bibles , the torah, the koran.
If you wish to ignore this and believe that Adam and Eve were the beginning of the only humans with souls, then you will have to accept that a little bit of incest must have been involved. And since it is also a scientific fact that neanderthals interbred with homo sapiens, then the offspring either did or did not have a soul, depending on your opinion re neanderthals. God is not stupid, and I cannot accept that he thinks catholics are any better than protestants , or that either are any better than jews or muslims or neanderthals or any other progenitor. Nor can I accept that anything the pope says is any more credible than anything that an intelligent atheist might say. Does that make me less of a catholic

iDoes that make me less of a catholic.

The Genesis account speaks of the sons of Adam taking wives, and does not imply that these were sisters. IOW, belief in a literal Adam and Eve does not imply that no other humans are in the family tree of humankind, but rather that there was an Adam and Eve who are common to the entire family tree.

It could be that the literal Adam and Eve were the biological parents of moral awareness, as told metaphorically in the Genesis account, and that this physical propensity or neurological capacity for moral awareness (and, due to their choice, the moral self-centeredness of their family line), the common lot of all humankind, came literally from that single physical family line. That would be enough.

 

[EasterJoy]

The Genesis account speaks of the sons of Adam taking wives, and does not imply that these were sisters. IOW, belief in a literal Adam and Eve does not imply that no other humans are in the family tree of humankind, but rather that there was an Adam and Eve who are common to the entire family tree.

It could be that the literal Adam and Eve were the biological parents of moral awareness, as told metaphorically in the Genesis account, and that this physical propensity or neurological capacity for moral awareness (and, due to their choice, the moral self-centeredness of their family line), the common lot of all humankind, came literally from that single physical family line. That would be enough.

Y-chromosomal Adam lived somewhere between 60,000 and maybe 150,000 years ago. The mitochondrial Eve is thought to have lived around 200,000 years ago. Obviously, a lot of “patrilineal Adam” family lines that were around in the time of the mitochondrial Eve have died out…that is, a lot of versions of “Y” that would have been around in her time are not represented in modern humans.

It is reasonably possible, then, that there is a “moral Adam and Eve”, a pair not on the far patrilineal or far matrilineal lines but nevertheless a family line that is common to every modern human family tree that still exists. The “pre-moral” or “pre-deist” lines may have all died out. If one looks at genetic theory having to do with the advantages and disadvantages of different modes of cooperative behavior, the possibility is not that far-fetched. The “post-moral” or “deist” line may have had a competitive advantage and have been the only one surviving, in spite of the wages of the Fall.

 

[EasterJoy]

The “pre-moral” or “pre-deist” lines may have all died out.

I mean the purely pre-moral or pre-deist lines; that is, those humans who do not have Adam and Eve in their ancestral line.

 

[Iheartcoffee]

I have nothing to cite for this, but I would guess that they did have souls.

 

[Mattemt294]

Hi everyone! -

I was curious, no one mentioned how in the OT, in genesis, it talks about other species of humans, not in that exact term I think they refer to them as Angela or something, says they breed with human females and create super strong humans and stuff. Before the flood. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I know we don’t have exact time periods when Adam, eve, and the Neanderthals lived and disappeared so isn’t it possible this was the cross breeding everyone is mentioning?