Original Inherited Sin
I’ve been sketching. No, I do not have a full or complete picture yet, but I’m still sketching with the hope that one will materialize. So, what am I sketching? I’m trying to sketch a Christological picture that specifically addresses the concept/doctrine of Original Sin. Perhaps some of you may be able to help me with this sketch. Please remember, I’m just sketching an abstract of sorts …
So, I’m starting with the idea of Original Sin. Judaism does not have a doctrine of Original Sin. In fact, the teaching of Original Sin is antithetical to the basic teachings and message of the Torah and Prophets. Further, Judaism has no concept of Original Inherited Sin (i.e., humanity being infected by Original Sin through conception and birth?). Judaism instead emphasizes the radical freedom human beings have been afforded by God so that we may make honest moral choices (e.g., choosing good over evil, life over death). In other words, Judaism celebrates the deeply theological idea of humanity being purposefully created in the image of God and – this is important – it never acknowledged/acknowledges the idea of human beings being infected by the passing of Original Inherited Sin and consequently being born by default in a damned and corrupted state.
Christianity obviously has a doctrine of Original Sin. Christianity also has a concept of Original Inherited Sin (i.e., it was/is passed through conception and birth?). I’m sure this doctrine and concept has more to do with Plato and the influence of the philosophical School of Alexandria upon early church fathers (they wrote the doctrine and theology) more than it has to do with Jesus of Nazareth and Hebrew thought and theology, but I haven’t investigated this fully, as of yet. I am doing so as I sketch this abstract.
Jesus of Nazareth was neither a Christian (obviously), nor was he a student of The School of Alexandria. I’m pretty sure his inner circle wasn’t either. They were all Jewish folk who were entirely Hebraic in expression, thought and theology. Were they not?
Now, keep all of the above in mind as we jump to the doctrine of the virgin birth for a second. The story that we have tells us that Jesus was not born from a human father, or according to the flesh (sexual conception). A human father was replaced by a divine one. The mother was human, but the father was not human and he therefore could not pass “Original Sin” to the boy. This scenario worked in the first century and in the early church because they did not have gynecology. Yes, that’s right – gynecology. Women in the first century were believed to be mere “houses” for their husband’s seed (sperm). Honestly, it’s all about the sperm. Women did not have anything else to do with conception other than playing the role of “incubator” for her husband’s sperm, which was the source of all life (that’s why it was a sin to spill one’s sperm on the ground). People living back then were totally ignorant of the existence and role of the female egg, fallopian tube, and uterus. A woman’s co-creative abilities never occurred to them. That deserves repeating: “A woman’s co-creative abilities never occurred to them.” They had no understanding of female physiology in the first century! In fact, the uterus was not even close to being properly understood until the early 1500’s – and even then it was believed to be compartmentalized in seven chambers wherein males developed in the three chambers to the right, females in the three chambers to the left, and hermaphrodites in the remaining middle chamber! So clearly, the first century was in the dark as far as a woman’s reproductive physiology was concerned. Yet, they founded and constructed what some would call very important doctrines upon it, and sperm, of course.
So, to summarize the point: The attempt to spare Jesus from Original Inherited Sin by replacing his biological father with a divine father would not separate him from his mother’s co-creative abilities and would consequently permit any original sin she inherited from her own father to be passed to her child.
Incidentally, this question is not new. I am not the first to think of it. In fact, the Catholic Church realized this predicament in the 1800’s and quickly pronounced Mary as “one who was born sinless,” thus making her totally unable to pass Original Sin while simultaneously admitting that she did in fact posses co-creative abilities. This recasting by the Catholic Church is popularly known as the “Immaculate Conception.” Mary couldn’t have passed Original Sin because she was born free from all stain of original sin. In other words, Mary was completely sinless too! She could not pass Original Sin if she was spared from it. Problem solved!
Now then, the big question, for me, has less to do with the specific details above and more to do with the timing of it all. I’ll try to explain. The big idea that I’m wrestling with has less to do with the total lack of physiological understanding that was invested into the Christian doctrine of Original Inherited Sin, the historicity of the virgin birth, and/or a high/low Christology, and more to do with the how, why and when of all of these theological/narrative gymnastics. You see, I am of the opinion that if Judaism in fact possessed no doctrine or theological concept of Original Sin but instead celebrated humanity’s freedom to choose to act in either moral (righteous), or immoral (unrighteous) ways, then from where did the need to interject all of the above into the story come? Why all the cognitive gymnastics??? Perhaps a more important question has to do with the timing? In other words, if all of this is an interjection into the Jesus narrative, then when did the interjection happen? I’m sure there will be many who will reach for Romans 5 immediately, but to them I would ask the same question Tony Jones asked concerning that chapter’s dependence upon one’s interpretation of Genesis 1-3. Too, and more to the point of this abstract, I’d advance the question of origins. Where did Paul – the self-proclaimed “Hebrew of Hebrews” – pick up the concept expressed in Romans 5? Furthermore, I suspect that the major interjection of Original Sin – as it is expressed today – had its origins in the early church and early church leaders. Again, I’m still investigating it. So, to summarize what I consider to be the most important questions that are raised by all of this, I would simply ask the following: “From where did the interjection come? Who superimposed it upon a Hebrew socio-spiritual grassroots movement? How, why and when did this happen?”
Then as a follow up question, I’d ask, “What would faith and spirituality look like without such interjection into the story?” Surely, it would be much more unifying locally and globally.
Remember, I’m just sketching abstract thoughts. There is still much research and thinking that must be done in this specific area before a solid picture or framework emerges. I hope my abstract thinking about these issues leads to something tangible, effective, affective, and practical. For now, however, I’ll settle for abstract thinking.
Related posts:
I think it is significant that all of those who taught me this theology over the years focused on the disobedience of eating the fruit as the original sin, not the motive for eating the fruit. I read the narrative more in terms of our loss of both innocence and connection to nature as we pursued the knowledge of God (or the gods). I see the story explaining our loss of connection to the garden (Earth) and explaining the danger of the hubris of trying to know all that God knows. I think its worth looking at in your sketch and search of the record, because I think we put in all the mental gyrations as we spun right back to the motivation in the Genesis narrative — we went right back to trying to prove we know everything about everything and do not need to trust a God who is beyond our constructions.
I also think what you are describing is strongest in western varieties of Christianity. We think of everything in terms of guilt and justice, not honor, community, or being co-creators in the ongoing evolution of the world.
Besides it is easier to control people if they buy into being born helpless and in need of the help and blessing of the organization for both earthly and eternal safety! Wouldn’t be surprised if that is hiding in the actual development as the different cults of Jesus struggle to become The church.
Just sketching too, will be very interested to see how yours develops! peace
It is an honor to sketch with you, Greg. :)
[...] addendum to the thoughts I had earlier in the week that are expressed in this abstract-like post: Freedom to Make Good Decisions and Other Abstract Things. I encountered more information that is relevant to the sketch expressed in that post. i thought [...]
I have a few comments
1) The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined in the nineteenth century, but it was believed long before that. John Duns Scotus (+1308) defended the doctrine in the thirteenth century, but the idea of Mary as being without sin was already known in the time of St. Augustine, who refused in commenting on Romans 5 to attribute sin to Mary. It has to do with the typological reading of the Scripture, with Mary being seen as a Second Eve (readings that go back to St. Irenaeus in the second century at least).
2) With regard to original sin, the origin of the Western form of the doctrine probably goes back to St. Augustine’s interpretation of St. Paul in Book 14 of the City of God. According to this interpretation, because Adam rebelled against God by committing the sin of pride in the Garden of Eden, God allowed Adam’s body to rebel against his soul by concupiscence (especially by unwanted arousal or impotence).
Hi, Matthew. Thanks for the thoughts. I’m sure they are important to you as a practicing Roman Catholic.
I too will respond with a few comments.
1. If the idea that Mary was as sinless as the Christ existed in some sort of vague form prior to the official declaration of The Doctrine of The Immaculate Conception, I would be surprised if it wasn’t deemed heretical by the powers that were. That said, the tag of heresy doesn’t concern me as much as the convenient use of the doctrine in the 19th century as an answer for the issues concerning the sudden realization that Mary would have been responsible for co-creating Jesus. If we need Mary to be completely sinless to preserve the doctrine of original sin and the virgin birth – in light of what we now know about procreation compared to what they knew int he 1st century – then we have some very serious issues to deal with right now. If you can tie it all together and still express the same doctrine re: original sin, virgin birth, and Romans 3:23 (ALL – which would include Mary – have sinned and fall short of the glory of God), you will be the 1st person I have encountered who can do so honestly.
2. I agree with you on your second point. I do think Augustine was the source of the Doctrine of Original Sin as it is popularly expressed in American Christianity (or the Catholic Church). However, I wonder how you, as a Catholic, reconcile this expression with Judaism’s total lack of such a doctrine?
Also, Matthew, I just want to emphasize one important thing about this thread of thought. My point is not to make The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception the point of contention because it is not. The point of contention is the science of co-creation (male and females share co-creation responsibilities) and how that affects what we read in the texts; The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is simply one way to resolve the issue. It’s up to the individual to decide if it actually does so.
Shawn,
Of course, I understand that the Immaculate Conception was not the point of this thread, nor was defending that doctrine my point in bringing it up. As such, while you bring up several important side issues, especially the proper interpretation of Rom 3:23, I will try to stick to the main point. And my main point is this: I am trying to disentangle the doctrines of original sin and the virgin birth from the scientific understanding (or lack thereof) of microbiology. The first step in this argument is to establish that the doctrine Immaculate Conception was already an accepted theological opinion in Roman Catholic theological discussion, even if not explicitly defined as dogma, long before the Scientific Revolution, and that it is unlikely, based on the historical evidence, that it was introduced into theological discussion after the Scientific Revolution to adjust to a new biological understanding of humanity. A quick glance at the history of the doctrine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm) shows that, while it was a matter for theological debate among Catholics before the definition of 1854, it had its defenders from at least the time of Duns Scotus in the 13th century.
As for why it was defined in 1854, I am afraid that I must plead ignorance, and to that degree your hypothesis could be plausible. However, I doubt it for this reason; the idea that Mary contributed in some way to Christ’s humanity was also hardly new. Immediately, the wording of the Athanasian Creed (circa 5th century, I think), “man of the substance of his mother” sprang to my mind. The contribution of Mary to Christ’s conception was also recognized in Medieval times, at least in the most influential product of Medieval theological literature, St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica (ST III, 31, 5). St. Thomas seems to view human conception in terms of form, which is provided by the male semen, and matter, which is provided by the menstrual blood. In the case of Christ, Mary provided the matter by her blood, and the Holy Spirit provided the form by his power.
The reason why I brought St. Augustine up was to discuss his explanation of the transmission of original sin, namely that it belongs not to biological phenomena unobservable without the scientific method, but to the observable nature of the sexual act after the Fall (e.g. that men and women aren’t in complete control of their sexual drives as shown in such observable phenomena as impotence or undesired arousal). Now, whether this idea of transmission is theologically defensible is quite another ball of wax, but my main contention (i.e. that the doctrine of Original Sin, at least as espoused in Augustine and Thomas, should not be linked to misunderstandings of microbiology) remains.
Shawn,
As for your question of how I, as a Catholic, would reconcile the influence of Augustine on the doctrine of Original Sin with its absence in Judaism, I would make only two short comments
1) I would be as interested as you in knowing the background of Rom 5 – E.g. Where is Paul pulling the idea of Original Sin from. I just don’t know the answer to that question, and certainly it would be fascinating….
2) But, given that Paul has at least some concept of Original Sin in Rom 5 and other places, the idea that St. Augustine would expand upon it is not at all troubling to me, because I have a full fledged idea of the development of doctrine, as espoused in John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. I expect doctrinal developments, and the Scriptures themselves provide some wonderful examples of these. Think of the doctrine of the resurrection – it is totally absent in earlier Judaism with its idea of Sheol, and subsequently resurrection only seems to be present in the form of a national resurrection (e.g. the Valley of Dry Bones), but by the time of Daniel and 2 Maccabees there is a very developed idea of resurrection, which Christ was able to take up. So too, with the doctrine of Original Sin – I don’t expect the precision or the exact expressions of Augustine, Aquinas, Trent, or Vatican II to be present in the mind of St. Paul, but I do expect them to be part of the full implications of ideas that were already in existence – implications that needed to be worked out over the course of time.
@Matthew
If doctrinal developments have evolved, which I agree they have, then they can’t be all that important, unless we can say that those living on the far side of this development are somehow more secure than those characters in the story who did not possess the sort of understanding that accompanies development. Make sense? In other words, if the characters in the story were “OK” in spite of their lack of developed doctrine, then what benefit can those who possess the final product actually claim? I say this only to place the doctrine you are pointing towards in its proper perspective. It really does not matter. So, when issues like our 1st Century (and earlier) understanding of the female anatomy and procreation/co-creation arise, why then do we have such a difficult time admitting that if certain doctrines depend upon archaic understandings of these things then they should be seriously reconsidered? If the characters in the texts didn’t possess “developed doctrine,” but still were the disciples they are advertised to be, then why can’t we?
Also, and as an aside, as developed as the doctrine of resurrection may or may not have been during the time of Daniel and 2 Maccabees, it still created much tension between Jewish sects, as can be seen when Paul uses the doctrine to start a fight between Pharisees and Sadducees, who disagreed vehemently over the correctness of the doctrine.
How much about Zoroastrianism do you know, Matthew? If you dig there, you’ll find a lot of things that influenced Jewish expression. That said, if we start digging at all, we will find that much of what is in our Bible existed in the larger world surrounding the particular culture we are discussing.
Syncritism is a lively creature.
At any rate, I am digressing.
I would like to make one final point about your comment preceding the one directly above the comment I’ve been discussing. It regards the understanding of co-creation and your reference to Augstine and St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica.
You can reference these fellows all day, Matthew. However, it does not alter the fact that they too were building from a textual foundation wherein the belief was that a women did nothing but house their man’s seed of life (sperm). Any development of any doctrine built upon that would be founded upon that obviously erroneous idea. The house built is only as strong as the foundation supporting it, and there exists a fine line between “development” and “alteration.” We can attempt to “develop” things, but at some point we are going to have to address the foundations upon which we build. Otherwise, we can just make stuff up, right? So, I guess my question is this: How informative or authoritative are citations from Augustine and St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica, if the foundation upon which they are building is lacking?