7 ms·

This might not be quite as outlandish as it sounds, because we now have plenty of evidence that early humans were living alongside and interacting with other ar

This might not be quite as outlandish as it sounds, because we now have plenty of evidence that early humans were living alongside and interacting with other archaic homo species. I have a pet (similarly highly speculative) theory that the Nephilim[1] of the Bible might be a earlier oral history of Neanderthals. But I'll just leave it at that, speculation. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

EdwardDiego 6y ago
Huh, I have that same pet theory.
- generalizations 6y ago
  And same. I believe there's also a theory that the neanderthals were smarter than our ancestors of the time. That would also fit the story. I can imagine the homo sapiens of the time interacting with the far stronger and smarter neanderthals and describing them as 'sons of god'. I wonder if that's also where the old Greek myths of Hercules (etc) came from.
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    “Sons of god” is a translation of the Hebrew by non-Jews and is just plain incorrect. It gets passed around as legit probably because it enforces the idea that Christ is a son of God. But If you ask Jews, who wrote that section of the Bible, benei elokim translates as something like “those who are free”: “Who or what exactly are the benei elokim? Who are the nephilim? How are they related to each other? And what does it all mean? One thing benei elokim does not mean is “sons of G‑d.” In fact, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai would “curse” anyone who translated the term benei elokim as the “sons of G‑d.”1 The word elokim in Scripture, while generally referring to G‑d, is in essence merely an expression of authority.2 Similarly, the term benei does not necessarily mean “sons,” but is often just a title. Benei chorin, for example, means those who are free—not “sons of freedom.” https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1987422/jewish/Nephilim-Fallen-Angels-Giants-or-Men.htm https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1987422/jewis...
    - generalizations 6y ago
      That was an interesting read. Thanks. I'm not sure how the linked article expresses more than an alternate translation, though. It says that benei doesn't "necessarily" translate to sons, which doesn't rule out the translation but merely suggests an alternative. The word elokim also refers generally to God, as it says, but can be translated differently. It's an interesting alternative, but the claim that the translation "sons of god" is specifically wrong only seems to be based on the declaration of a single earlier source. > It gets passed around as legit probably because it enforces the idea that Christ is a son of God. I've never heard of that before. Not sure where you would have, or how it even does reenforce that idea.
      - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
        > how it even does reenforce that idea. It reinforces “Christ as the son of God” because, if the phrase is translated as “sons of God”, that sets a precedent in the Old Testament that God has sons. The Jews do not believe God has sons. Christians do. So it is in the best interest of Christian translators to translate that phrase as “sons of God”. > but the claim that the translation "sons of god" is specifically wrong only seems to be based on the declaration of a single earlier source. No, I only provided one source (Chabad), but there are many others, including all Jewish translations of the Old Testament (Torah) from the original Hebrew to English. You’ll never see it translated as “sons of God” in a book translated by Jews.
        tyfon 6y ago
        Now I am confused, maybe because I am not religious. But I have always been under the impression that the christians claim jesus is the only son of their god? Wouldn't other sons conflict with this and not reinforce it?
        _Microft 6y ago
        Well, actually it is a bit more complicated than just God having a (or more than one) son: „The Christian doctrine of the Trinity […] holds that God is one God, but three coeternal and consubstantial persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, yet are one ‚substance, essence or nature‘. In this context, a ‚nature‘ is what one is, whereas a ‚person‘ is who one is“, from [0] where you can also read a lot more about it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
  - stareatgoats 6y ago
    AFAICT, the Greek pantheon (Hercules etc) is commonly assumed to belong to a religious belief system that in large part aligns with the spread of the Indo-European language, probably (maybe) originating with the Yamnaya culture on the Pontic steppe north of the Black sea according to what is called the Kurgan hypothesis [0][1]. The culture and language seems to have spread across large parts of the Indo-European landmass starting maybe 6000 years ago, eventually displacing many older European and Indian cultures respectively among others. It is assumed to be the reason that such disparate pantheons as the Roman, Greek, Norse and Hindu have many common characteristics. One reason for the relative swift and wide spread of the culture is currently speculated to be that the Yamnaya were the first to domesticate the horse and use them to pull wagons (chariots).[2] While it could be possible that the original pantheon referred to Neanderthals a more rational interpretation seems to me to be that the pantheon is a deified memory of some prominent people in a small group that roamed the plains of present Ukraine many thousands of years ago, a group that came to conquer other groups because of their advanced horsemanship, establishing traditions that in turn achieved a life of their own as traditions and beliefs commonly do. But hey, it is little more than speculation at this point. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamnaya_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamnaya_culture [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_mythology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_mythology [2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509185446.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509185446.h...
    - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      Only a quite small number of the Greek pantheon have Indo-European forebears and were brought to Greece with the expansion of the Indo-European languages from the Pontic Steppes. Most of the Greek deities derive from the non-Indo-European autochthonous culture of Greece, or from interaction with the Greeks’ neighbors in Anatolian. Your own linked article emphasizes this: "Despite the popularity of Greek mythology in western culture, Greek mythology is generally seen as having little importance in comparative mythology due to the heavy influence of Pre-Greek and Near Eastern cultures, which overwhelms what little Indo-European material can be extracted from it."
      - 6y ago
- abacadaba 6y ago
  Similar pet theory, but that other hominids are remembered as dwarves, elves, and trolls.
pcmaffey 6y ago
I also have a theory that the Titans were the gods of Neanderthals.
- trianglem 6y ago
  Titans are similar to the Indo-European pantheon of gods which have been around for 5000 years. The Neanderthals haven’t been around for 45,000 years. I strongly doubt that’s the origin for the titans. The replacement aspect of it most probably comes from the Yamnaya that killed almost ALL the men in northern and Central Europe and replaced them.
CryptoPunk 6y ago
Trolls, in Scandinavian folklore, also fit the profile of neanderthals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll
- goto11 6y ago
  How so?
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    The speech portions of the brain were smaller in Neanderthals, which would have made them appear dimwitted to humans, which is how trolls are often depicted in folklore. They are known to have lived in smaller social groups than humans, and trolls are depicted as living in small groups as well. Neanderthals were larger than humans, and trolls are similarly depicted as large.
    - goto11 6y ago
      You are just picking the characteristics which confirm your hypothesis. Trolls in Scandinavian folklore can be very different depending on local traditions. They can be small people living underground, human size, or giants living in the the mountains. They can be solitary or living in human-like societies. Literal quote from the Wikipedia article you link: "Trolls may be described as small, human-like beings or as tall as men depending on the region of origin of the story."
      - CryptoPunk 6y ago
        It was quite common to depict them as a) human like, b) dimwitted, c) living in caves, d) living in small social groups, e) larger and stronger than humans. You're right that there were other characteristics that were associated with them in some folklore that was not consistent with the Neanderthal hypothesis.
        goto11 6y ago
jf 6y ago
I was raised Christian and I recall this theory being used in a Christian young adult “historical fiction” novel that I once read

EdwardDiego 6y ago

Huh, I have that same pet theory.

generalizations 6y ago
And same. I believe there's also a theory that the neanderthals were smarter than our ancestors of the time. That would also fit the story. I can imagine the homo sapiens of the time interacting with the far stronger and smarter neanderthals and describing them as 'sons of god'. I wonder if that's also where the old Greek myths of Hercules (etc) came from.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  “Sons of god” is a translation of the Hebrew by non-Jews and is just plain incorrect. It gets passed around as legit probably because it enforces the idea that Christ is a son of God. But If you ask Jews, who wrote that section of the Bible, benei elokim translates as something like “those who are free”: “Who or what exactly are the benei elokim? Who are the nephilim? How are they related to each other? And what does it all mean? One thing benei elokim does not mean is “sons of G‑d.” In fact, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai would “curse” anyone who translated the term benei elokim as the “sons of G‑d.”1 The word elokim in Scripture, while generally referring to G‑d, is in essence merely an expression of authority.2 Similarly, the term benei does not necessarily mean “sons,” but is often just a title. Benei chorin, for example, means those who are free—not “sons of freedom.” https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1987422/jewish/Nephilim-Fallen-Angels-Giants-or-Men.htm https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1987422/jewis...
  - generalizations 6y ago
    That was an interesting read. Thanks. I'm not sure how the linked article expresses more than an alternate translation, though. It says that benei doesn't "necessarily" translate to sons, which doesn't rule out the translation but merely suggests an alternative. The word elokim also refers generally to God, as it says, but can be translated differently. It's an interesting alternative, but the claim that the translation "sons of god" is specifically wrong only seems to be based on the declaration of a single earlier source. > It gets passed around as legit probably because it enforces the idea that Christ is a son of God. I've never heard of that before. Not sure where you would have, or how it even does reenforce that idea.
    - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
      > how it even does reenforce that idea. It reinforces “Christ as the son of God” because, if the phrase is translated as “sons of God”, that sets a precedent in the Old Testament that God has sons. The Jews do not believe God has sons. Christians do. So it is in the best interest of Christian translators to translate that phrase as “sons of God”. > but the claim that the translation "sons of god" is specifically wrong only seems to be based on the declaration of a single earlier source. No, I only provided one source (Chabad), but there are many others, including all Jewish translations of the Old Testament (Torah) from the original Hebrew to English. You’ll never see it translated as “sons of God” in a book translated by Jews.
      - tyfon 6y ago
        Now I am confused, maybe because I am not religious. But I have always been under the impression that the christians claim jesus is the only son of their god? Wouldn't other sons conflict with this and not reinforce it?
        _Microft 6y ago
        Well, actually it is a bit more complicated than just God having a (or more than one) son: „The Christian doctrine of the Trinity […] holds that God is one God, but three coeternal and consubstantial persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, yet are one ‚substance, essence or nature‘. In this context, a ‚nature‘ is what one is, whereas a ‚person‘ is who one is“, from [0] where you can also read a lot more about it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
- stareatgoats 6y ago
  AFAICT, the Greek pantheon (Hercules etc) is commonly assumed to belong to a religious belief system that in large part aligns with the spread of the Indo-European language, probably (maybe) originating with the Yamnaya culture on the Pontic steppe north of the Black sea according to what is called the Kurgan hypothesis [0][1]. The culture and language seems to have spread across large parts of the Indo-European landmass starting maybe 6000 years ago, eventually displacing many older European and Indian cultures respectively among others. It is assumed to be the reason that such disparate pantheons as the Roman, Greek, Norse and Hindu have many common characteristics. One reason for the relative swift and wide spread of the culture is currently speculated to be that the Yamnaya were the first to domesticate the horse and use them to pull wagons (chariots).[2] While it could be possible that the original pantheon referred to Neanderthals a more rational interpretation seems to me to be that the pantheon is a deified memory of some prominent people in a small group that roamed the plains of present Ukraine many thousands of years ago, a group that came to conquer other groups because of their advanced horsemanship, establishing traditions that in turn achieved a life of their own as traditions and beliefs commonly do. But hey, it is little more than speculation at this point. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamnaya_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamnaya_culture [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_mythology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_mythology [2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509185446.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509185446.h...
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    Only a quite small number of the Greek pantheon have Indo-European forebears and were brought to Greece with the expansion of the Indo-European languages from the Pontic Steppes. Most of the Greek deities derive from the non-Indo-European autochthonous culture of Greece, or from interaction with the Greeks’ neighbors in Anatolian. Your own linked article emphasizes this: "Despite the popularity of Greek mythology in western culture, Greek mythology is generally seen as having little importance in comparative mythology due to the heavy influence of Pre-Greek and Near Eastern cultures, which overwhelms what little Indo-European material can be extracted from it."
    - 6y ago
abacadaba 6y ago
Similar pet theory, but that other hominids are remembered as dwarves, elves, and trolls.

pcmaffey 6y ago

I also have a theory that the Titans were the gods of Neanderthals.

trianglem 6y ago
Titans are similar to the Indo-European pantheon of gods which have been around for 5000 years. The Neanderthals haven’t been around for 45,000 years. I strongly doubt that’s the origin for the titans. The replacement aspect of it most probably comes from the Yamnaya that killed almost ALL the men in northern and Central Europe and replaced them.

CryptoPunk 6y ago

Trolls, in Scandinavian folklore, also fit the profile of neanderthals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll

goto11 6y ago
How so?
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  The speech portions of the brain were smaller in Neanderthals, which would have made them appear dimwitted to humans, which is how trolls are often depicted in folklore. They are known to have lived in smaller social groups than humans, and trolls are depicted as living in small groups as well. Neanderthals were larger than humans, and trolls are similarly depicted as large.
  - goto11 6y ago
    You are just picking the characteristics which confirm your hypothesis. Trolls in Scandinavian folklore can be very different depending on local traditions. They can be small people living underground, human size, or giants living in the the mountains. They can be solitary or living in human-like societies. Literal quote from the Wikipedia article you link: "Trolls may be described as small, human-like beings or as tall as men depending on the region of origin of the story."
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
      It was quite common to depict them as a) human like, b) dimwitted, c) living in caves, d) living in small social groups, e) larger and stronger than humans. You're right that there were other characteristics that were associated with them in some folklore that was not consistent with the Neanderthal hypothesis.
      - goto11 6y ago

jf 6y ago

I was raised Christian and I recall this theory being used in a Christian young adult “historical fiction” novel that I once read