In 24/23 BCE Jesus was born and underwent a typical aristocratic education.
Until he was seven, he lived in the care of his mother and her servants and was looked after with brothers, sisters and other children.
At the age of seven Jesus started at an elementary school at the court of Herod the Great, where he was educated with the sons of Herod and other sons of aristocrats. Here Jesus met Manaen, the later Christian presbyter in Antiochia, Acts 13, 1.
Whereas in his mother’s house Aramaic and Greek were spoken, in the school only Greek was spoken. The syllabus included recitations of Homer and other classical authors of Greek antiquity, reading, writing, calculating, geometry, playing music, and physical education.
4. The Armenia crisis leads us into the time when the Samaritan prophet
appeared, Josephus, Ant. 18,4,1. The death of Jesus as a Messiah and the riot over the Samaritan prophet must be the same event. In 36 CE Jesus was crucified as the Samaritan prophet.
5. The proclamation of Jesus as Messiah in Caesarea Philippi is only plausible if Jesus was qualified for the job as a governor by his education or by being from an aristocratic family.
6. Therefore, this is how I understand the Temptation (Matt 4, Luke 4): in 6 CE, in the crisis of the Herodians, when Archelaus in Jerusalem lost his job and was banished to Gaul, Herod Antipas offered Jesus the job of governor of Galilee, and Jesus accepted the offer and took over the duty. Later the church claimed that Jesus had refused the offer.
Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768) exposed this contradiction: he applied the criteria
of plausibility and agreement with sources to examine the biblical story of Jesus. He proved 1. that the biblical narratives of Jesus and his disciples are often not plausible, and 2. that there are a lot of contradictions between the teachings of Jesus and those of the apostles, and so of the church.
Reimarus recommended the following solution, which is critical of the church: that the resurrection was a fraud by the disciples, who wanted to continue making their living as itinerant preachers.
The problem brought up by Reimarus was accepted as a scientific /scholarly problem and led to the German Leben-Jesu-Forschung of the 19th century. But his solution was rightly rejected by subsequent scholars.
The Bible tells the history of Jesus and his disciples in the style of contemporary poetry. It mixes historical facts
with fictional material such as anecdotes and miracles, and at the important places supernatural powers and persons are brought into play to substantiate the significance of the events.
Until the Enlightenment people intuitively understood this way of telling stories about Jesus: nobody saw a contradiction between religious truth and historical facts.
In the modern sciences since the 16th century the idea of truth has been connected with verifiability and repeatability in experiments. In the historical sciences since the Renaissance, and especially in the 18th century, plausibility and agreement with sources have gained acceptance as criteria of truth.
mind as an evolutionary innovation was made possible by a functional change of
which acquired the ability to communicate within a network, and by a functional change of this network, which facilitated the motivation of the individuals involved and the control of their instincts.
The motivational impulses in the network, which bestow vital energy and without which individuals and social groups are not viable, have been identified as the nucleus of the human mind. The development up to the beginnings of the mind also takes place within the framework of Darwin’s theory of evolution. However, in the end, there is a new stage of existence.
The intellectually gifted human being has emergent characteristics for whose description, beyond biological theory, a separate set of rules is required.
The task at hand was to present the evolution of the mind in accordance with Darwin’s theory of evolution.
attempts at solutions based on the co-evolution of brain and mind have been
rejected because the mind assumes the brain has already been completed
developed (both factually and temporally). In addition, the emergent qualities
of the human mind still cannot play a role on the biological level of brain
The proposed solution is based on a succession of the evolution of brain and mind. The development of the brain with the stages of prenatal growth, postnatal growth, and the networked brain can be plausibly explained based on the Darwinian theory of evolution without using the influence of mental or cultural factors as a justification.
The influence of the mind would then be an additional and not necessarily an explanatory cause to be rejected according to the principle of Ockham’s razor.
new level of existence of the spiritual requires a different set of rules,
one which is developed by the humanities and social sciences. The appropriateness of this must be continually re-examined in detail.
(The distinction between levels of existence and the phenomenon of emergence are dealt with in philosophical literature in the context of the theory of strata or stratification theory, of which Nicolai Hartmann is the best-known recent exponent, cf. N. Hartmann, Der Aufbau der realen Welt. Grundriß der allgemeinen Kategorienlehre, Berlin 1940, 3rd edition 1964.)
In the 3rd hypothesis, I rejected the concept of co-evolution of culture and brain. There is another reason for this rejection: Culture as an emergent characteristic belongs to the level of existence of the spiritual. That is why it could not even be present when the brain, which belongs to the biological stage of existence, developed.
Here I have shown where the boundary between the spheres of the biological and the spiritual runs.
like the physicalists and the vitalists argued about the sovereignty of
interpretation of biological phenomena around the year 1900,
there is currently a dispute about the emergence of spiritual phenomena. Just like physics was around the year 1900, biology is now more highly regarded as an exact natural science than the social sciences and the humanities, which are often disputed.
Just like physics was around the year 1900, biology is now the leading science. But like the physicalists around the year 1900, biologists of today fail to describe the more complex level of existence because they do not include the emergence associated with the new complexity in their calculations.
The biological theory system is only marginally suitable for the description of mental phenomena.
Systems almost always have the peculiarity that properties of the whole cannot be derived (not even in theory) from even the most complete knowledge of the components, regardless of whether they are considered individually or in other partial combinations.
This emergence of new qualities in an entity is called emergence and is often used in an attempt to explain such difficult phenomena as life, mind and consciousness. In fact, emergence is no less typical of inorganic systems.
(Mayr 2002, p. 52)
organisms are complex systems with new properties that require a new set of
rules, namely an independent biological theory. Achim Stephan mentions four
distinguishing features of emergent theories in his book on emergence (German: Emergenz, Paderborn,
3rd ed. 2007, pp. 14 – 25):
1. Naturalism: only natural factors play a role in evolution 2. Innovation: something genuinely new is created 3. Systemic properties 4. Hierarchy of the levels of existence: especially the areas of the material, the biological, and the spiritual.
With the network, a new level of existence beyond the biological sphere can be achieved (emergence).
as biological facts cannot be adequately described with the theories of
physics, mental or cultural facts cannot be adequately described with the body
of rules applicable to biology.
At the end of the 19th century there was a conflict in the explanation of biological phenomena between physicalists, who wanted to describe all biological phenomena with the well-respected theories of physics, and the vitalists, who emphasised the inadequacy of physical theories in the description of biological processes and brought into play the idea of a sentient soul of organisms, which contradicted prevailing naturalistic principles.
Neither the physicalists nor the vitalists were able to prevail in the end. The vitalists failed in their non-naturalistic approach. But even the physicalists could not adequately describe biological phenomena. Since biological organisms were very complex systems that produced new characteristics, the extent to which the theories of physics could be applied was limited.