The following thoughts are an 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. If you haven’t read that post, I would suggest that you read it before you read this one. This post is a continuation of the thoughts expressed in the first post. The post below would make much more sense if the original post was read first. At any rate, I encountered more information that is relevant to the sketch expressed in that original post. I thought I’d share it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The following excerpt has to do with Romans 5 and more importantly – at least for my abstract sketch – the interjection of the concept of Original Sin and Original Inherited Sin into the Christian narrative in spite of it’s Hebrew foundations.
The following translation issue(s) may exonerate the Apostle Paul from my early accusation of him not really being a “Hebrew of Hebrews” as a result of his obvious departure from the Torah and Prophets as concerns our human freedom to make good decisions (e.g., choose between good and evil, life and death) and his embrace of the antithetical idea of Original Inherited Sin. The problem, it turns out, isn’t Paul; it is a translation issue. Specifically, the issue is an unrecognized correlative conjunction.
…while the biblical autographa does not support Calvinism, the major English translations often do. The examples are too numerous to mention, though this book includes considerable information on this point. Still, one example, that of Romans 5:12, might be helpful here. Romans 5:12 in Greek is in the format of a correlative conjunction, a point absolutely missed by all major English translations. This correlative conjunction in the context of 5:12ff states that post-Adamic man sinned similarly to, not in, Adam [the Greek hosper (Eng. just as) finding its obvious grammatical completion in the kai outws, a two-word phrase that should have been translated also in this manner, but was rendered instead and so, which leaves the English reader with the wrongful impression of the causative and therefore, a meaning kai outws never takes]. In fact, because the NAS (and arguably the KJV) doesn’t recognize the correlative conjunction, it doesn’t even grammatically conclude the verse, doubtless assuming the verse to be nothing more than another example of Paul interrupting himself before completing his thought. Yet the presence of this correlative conjunction challenges the very heart of the doctrine of original sin, a doctrine which has routinely been used to defend the idea of the lost will of man. [I actually do believe that man inherited something in the Fall, but this, I believe, was an extensive and (for man's lower form), impudent knowledge (not a sin nature), a part, at least, which we allow to distract us from our focus upon God, even unto sin. I believe that Gr. sarx (i.e., flesh) in the context of fallen man includes this knowledge.] As for myself, then, I tire of hearing comments from Calvinists that imply that Bible translation committees obviously know what they’re doing simply because they’re in agreement with each other. This is no more than valuing credentialism at the expense of logic and/or the historical-grammatical hermeneutic. In fact it can be shown that certain later translations subsequent to the KJV frequently defer to the very-influential KJV in controversial passages, such as when the NAS follows the KJV numerous times in translating the Heb. chazak as “hardened” instead of “strengthened” in regard to Pharaoh’s heart, or when the NAS mimics the KJV word “raised” in Romans 9:17 instead of rendering it as “fully roused,” which is what Gr. exegeiro actually means. This latter mimicry once again leaves a wrong impression, in this case the notion that God raised Pharaoh from the cradle to the grave for the express purpose of reprobation.
If Paul and/or Romans 5 are not the entry point for the idea/concept of Original Sin and Original Inherited Sin, then where is this point?
Note: The above excerpt is taken from a great site/resource entitled: CALVINISM: A Closer Look By Daniel Gracely. I highly suggest that everyone spend some time digesting the material provided freely by Daniel Gracely.
Related posts:
Thanks for a thought provoking blog! To my knowledge, St Augustine is the answer to your question about the origin of the concept of original sin. Before Augustine, no original sin. Original sin is not more original to the Christian tradition than the late fourth century, and the eastern churches still do not have a doctrin of original sin.
Thus, the stories of the virgin birth in the gospels of Luke and Matthew are originally not about Jesus being born without inherited sin. I think the point is more about the divine origin of Jesus and the absence of any human father who could claim authority over him. Jesus has no father/authority but God alone. (Confer the story about Alexander the Great being begotten by Zeus rather than by his supposed father Philip.)
I’ve continued to meditate on the Genesis account and the idea of all mankind being guilty through the “sins of the father.” I cannot claim to be anything close to an expert on Hebraic thinking. But, the amount I do know leads me to believe that the original tradition the story comes from tends to see things more in an ongoing present tense — as in the Hasidic idea that the moral world is in balance between good and evil and it is always my next act that tips the scale.
I am wondering if they would not have seen the account more as a permanent admonition on the present danger of choosing your own desires over God’s instructions and/or trying to know all God knows or be God.
Even in the Romans text here, even if the translation had been more accurate, I have to wonder if they would have said or read it like we do or as an ongoing statement of the greater power of grace over the power of sin?
peace
I keep thinking about this one,
and it really seems powerful to me to consider that we are each adam/eve in every moment making the choice of dwelling in the Divine presence of the Creator and Creation, or choosing separation.
The traditional literal original sin version lets us off the hook really doesn’t it? We can blame the condition of the world on original eve/adam, the death of the Savior on the Jews and Romans, the loss of most of mankind and the planet on God’s will….while we just walk into the baptismal and declare ourselves redeemed and wait for Jesus to show up like the mother ship.
Pondering myself as adam/eve facing my next move, next choice, present attitude, or moment of wonder puts me full in the middle of the narrative and brings the eternal dilemma into my life in a way that informs my choices.
Have also been looking at some other New Testament passages that talk about the contrast of Adam and Christ. They read with a far more universal directness than I was ever raised to believe. The emphasis seems to me to be on the original resurrection of all things reclaimed by a loving God overcoming once and for all mankind’s choice to sin. It seems to me me dwell on the sin, when the passages are focused on the redemption.
And, that fills me with life that seeks to burst forth in glory!
peace