ABOUT NEANDERTHAL DECEIT
AND SELF-KNOWLEDGE IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY
Part I

Archaeological discoveries of remains of ancient beings labeled by researchers as Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons and the subsequent development of technologies for studying their DNA have posed challenges for the religious orthodox worldview. These discoveries raise questions and create dangerous and forbidden areas of inquiry. From a scientific and atheistic standpoint, these findings form the foundation of evolutionary theory. Creationism (the concept of divine creation), on the other hand, tries to incorporate these discoveries into its framework, but strictly in reverse chronological order. In the evolutionary model, humans are the final stage of development for such beings. In creationism, however, it is entirely the opposite: these "inferior" beings must have appeared after the creation of the perfect first human and must either be seen as sinful mutants or simply as unusual animals.

One might wonder, why should the religious worldview care about the work of archaeologists or genetic engineers of genomics? Yet the situation takes on a dramatic twist. The Neanderthals, with their grimaces and stone weapons, end up dismantling nothing less than the very core foundations of orthodox Christian doctrine. Long dead, they still manage to destroy the traditional concept of salvation and the afterlife, essentially annihilating everything that could possibly be destroyed. Religious apologists understand this, which is why they fiercely denounce atheist scientists, their discoveries, and their depiction of the world's origins. However, this battle began long before the study of DNA, and the root of the «undead’s» successful attack on Christianity lies in its own early history. But let’s take this one step at a time.

What is so terrifying about the conclusions of archaeology? Christianity has always and unshakably proclaimed death as the enemy of God. God did not create death. The terror of complete disappearance, the horror of vanishing in the consciousness of a dying child, the anguish of losing a loved one, one does not need to learn these things; everyone will experience death. For Christianity, death is the enemy of both God and man. But there is the news of the resurrection of the Savior and the faith in a future resurrection. Death is the final stronghold - the last enemy. Its fall marks the beginning of a newly saved world.

But how did death come to be in the first place? The doctrine of the Fall of Adam was meant to answer this question. According to Christian teaching, death entered God’s world as a consequence of the first act of disobedience. However, it is also believed that a plan for salvation was set in motion. The process of salvation began with rectifying the consequences of the Fall: first, humanity returns to God by eliminating the root cause of its fall, and only in the end will death itself - the consequence - be defeated. The first divine world fell but will be restored.

However, if death existed in the world from the very beginning, as scientific understanding suggests, then the entire doctrinal chain collapses. If death is independent of the Fall, then salvation does not rescue anyone from death. If the Fall is not the cause of death, then correcting the Fall does not grant immortality. If death existed before the Fall, was there ever a Fall at all? And what, then, is the purpose of salvation if it is meant to save humanity from something that never actually happened? And who, in that case, is the creator of a world inherently filled with death?

Thus, the fact of the Fall, if it follows the existence of death, disrupts the entire order, and the whole picture ultimately reveals itself as a religious fabrication. This is why, from a strict fundamentalist creationist perspective, anything that suggests the presence of death before Adam’s appearance is strictly forbidden. This leads to the emergence of so-called “biblical zoology,” in which even ancient predators, parasites, fangs, and sharp horns are strictly prohibited [1]. This viewpoint creates utterly fantastical scenarios of herbivores instantly transforming into carnivores - growing fangs, changing their digestive systems and genetics, and adapting their habitats accordingly. Let all this phantasmagoria persist, as long as the doctrine remains intact. After all, all these things must had appeared only after the Fall; otherwise, the concept of salvation is a deception.

The liberal wing of creationism, under the pressure of scientific discoveries and theories, gradually concedes ground, arguing that the first paradise existed but was only a localized place, while the surrounding world was a natural wilderness. The most free-thinking religious figures, such as Pope Francis, under scientific pressure, speak of evolution itself as a divine instrument of creation - an idea known as theistic evolution, which ultimately led to the emergence of Homo sapiens. However, Neanderthals pose a terrifying problem for both fundamentalists and liberals alike. Here’s why.

To determine whether these ancient cave-dwelling beings were humans like us, we do not actually need DNA sequencing. In a religious context - which is what interests us - the criterion is quite simple. It is not about tools, which can be found even among modern primates, but about how a species perceives death. How does a particular being respond to death? Only humans bury their dead, sending them off with hope and faith in another world and another life. Such beings cannot accept the disappearance of consciousness; they experience the finiteness of their existence with extreme pain and intensity, forming beliefs in an afterlife. And those ancient cave dwellers buried their own kind, leaving in graves items or symbols necessary for the afterlife.

Thus, in a religious sense, they were humans just like us - wild, intellectually limited, with a different emotional makeup, but still human. They began to perceive their existence and death as an enemy, overcoming their mortality through their faith. Despite fear, they prolonged the survival of their kind under brutal conditions that were lethal to them, through a reproductive mechanism beyond their control. Proponents of theistic evolution humbly bow before this «divine plan» of creation, whether they like it or not. But if this is so, then what about the fundamental Christian assertion that God did not create death? After all, the entire horror of existence - survival amid cold, hunger, killings, diseases, and encounters with death - was originally ordained from above. And this completely contradicts what Christian doctrine proclaims as fundamental and unshakable.

If we push this thought further, these foundational proclamations raise even more pressing questions.

Theistic evolution itself assumes divine intervention to facilitate developmental leaps. It is known that the DNA of those ancient humans differed from that of modern Homo sapiens. Consequently, the moment of biblical creation - Adam’s appearance - could also be seen as yet another such intervention. In that case, the best and most current model incorporated the results of previous experiments and prototypes. But that would mean our planet is essentially a vast biological laboratory - a testing ground - on whose final stage we now live as representatives of the latest model. That is, if we call things by their proper names.

Interestingly, for humanitarian reasons, humans impose restrictions on such genetic experiments, recognizing the suffering of new beings and deeming such methods unacceptable and even criminal. Yet, for some reason, theistic evolution evokes reverence among its followers. Who would dare go against a system that promises eternal life?

If we are to be entirely honest, then in proclaiming that God did not create death and that death is an enemy, we must also acknowledge that there is nothing divine in the world of theistic evolution - nor can there be. Religious salvation, in such circumstances, would have to be conceived and constructed in an entirely different framework. But in the early days of Christianity, there was no archaeology, no genetic engineering or DNA research to observe and analyze the ancient world and draw conclusions. There were no debates about genetic modification, no issues of cloning, nor questions about artificial intelligence and how its intellect compares to that of humans.

And yet, in some incredible and astonishing way, early Christian thought was deeply preoccupied with precisely these kinds of questions. Though there was no ancient archaeological world to study, there was still the same unchanged world around them - and someone, at some point, managed to look at it without the ‘rose-colored’ lenses of religious dogma, holding in their mind something remarkable. But more on this fascinating phenomenon later.

Comments at FB