From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 15:41:06 EDT
These are later commentaries you cite, which is fine,
but historically, that does not appear to be the
Jewish understanding preceding the writing of Rom
5.12ff -- it is an understanding that is absent in
Hebrew scriptures. Later Rabinnical exegesis can
hardly be used to explain what Paul means in Rom
5:12ff.
I should point out that in some sense, yes, of course,
there is original sin used broadly and not in its
technical, doctrinal sense. The question that
originated was whether the Augustinian interpretation
of mankind's problem of getting itself in the right
relationship with God, and one another, is the correct
scriptural one -- it is that version that is known as
the doctrine of original sin. I think Augustine, et
al. agree on the symptoms (which I think we generally
talk about under the rubric of original sin), the
question the doctrine of original sin (as a technical
term) deals with is the pathology, not the symptoms,
and only partially with the cure, since the pathology
of something does have something to say about how it
is cured.
To go to your point, I apologize for responding with
an extended quotation, but it addresses the point of
what Jews have understood the meaning to be up through
the time Paul wrote Romans 5:12 ff and underscores the
point that interpretation is diverse -- but absent of
what we would think of as the doctrine of original sin
in *Augustinian terms*, which is the comment that
started this all:
SINCE Gen. 3: contains nothing respecting the origin
of entailed sin, it should not surprise us that no
part of the Old Testament makes any use of this
chapter, and that it speaks only in general of the
sinfulness of man without any particular explanations
of the subject.
Moreover death is presented throughout the Old
Testament as occurring in the course of nature and not
as a consequence of Adam's sin. First during the exile
the Jews began to reflect upon the origin of moral
evil, and to find historically the source of sin and
death in Gen. 3. Probably their reflections on this
subject were prompted by the teachings of Zoroaster.*
* [The doctrine of Zoroaster concerning the fall,
bears some resemblance to the Mosaic account, yet
differs from it very widely. According to Zoroaster,
heaven was pledged to the first human pair on
condition that they persevered in virtue, and would
not worship any demons. At first, they were virtuous
but Ahriman (Satan,) caused a demon to suggest to them
evil thoughts, as e. g. whether himself was not the
Creator of the world. Through their belief of this
lie, the first pair became like Ahriman, wicked and
wretched. They went out to hunt and found a white goat
whose milk they ate and found it very stimulating, but
it was a poison to their bodies. The demon now gave
them fruits which they ate and thereby lost a hundred
fold of blessings and reduced themselves to a single
one.
Immortality, Zoroaster does not ascribe to the first
pair. Of original sin and its punishment, death, he
says nothing.
[Note.—Zoroaster, the celebrated reformer of the
doctrines and worship of the Magi, flourished among
the Medes probably from B. C. 650 to 600. His writings
are comprised in the Zendavesta.—Tr.]]
Yet were their opinions not more remarkable for being
few, than for being harmonious. Sirach does not indeed
deny the sinfulness of men, (chap. 8: 5,) yet he knows
nothing of original sin, but believes that men are not
born morally ruined, (chap. 10: 18, 19, & 51: 13) and
holds to free will, (chap. 15: 14—17.) The fall he
passes over, (chap. 18: 1,) in total silence, and
regards death, (chap. 17: 1,2,) as something original
and natural.
On the other hand there appears in his book another
view of this subject according to which the beginning
of sin and of death are derived from Eve;* a proof
that opinions on this point among the Jews were
various. Proof of this may be seen also in the manner
in which Philo and Josephus** understood the Mosaic
passages.
* [Chap, '25: 24. '' From the woman is the beginning
of sin, and through her (or it,) we all die." These
words obviously look towards Gen. 3, but it remains
uncertain in what way Sirach derived sin from Eve's
transgression, and whether the original Greek words,
translated, through her, or through it, refer to
"Eve," or to ' Sin." The former is more probable.
** Josephus knows nothing of original sin, but on the
contrary affirms that the posterity of Seth were in
the highest degree virtuous and wise by nature. He
derives from the fall not even one evil affecting the
whole race, and attributes to man before the fall only
this, that God had pledged to him a happy and long
life, wholly free from evil.]
The author of the Book of Wisdom also recognizes no
inherited sinfulness, originating from the sin of
Adam. He does indeed mention the fall of Adam, chap.
10: 1, and affirms, chap. 2: 23. ff, that death
originated through envy of the devil; but he
understands by the term death, not the death of the
body, but the eternal death of the soul.
We have moreover no ground to regard the doctrine of
the imputation of Adam's sin as the common doctrine of
the Jews before the time of Christ, and therefore to
explain Rom. 5: 12. ff, accordingly; for although this
doctrine may be found at an older period in the
writings of some of the Rabbis, yet it does not follow
with certainty that Paul already had it***
*** [Wetstein in his commentary on Rom. 5: 12. ff, has
quoted a multitude of Rabbinic passages to show that
all men have sinned in Adam and therefore must die;
but these passages do not prove all they are adduced
to prove, and are for the most part too recent to be
used in explaining Rom. 5. 12. ff. To prove this to be
the sense of the passage it must be shown that the
term ''sin," as used by Paul denotes universal
sin-guiltiness, which sense of the term, however, is
forbidden by the expressions, sin entered the world,"
" sin is not imputed," "not sinned after the
similitude of Adam's transgression," and " where sin
hath abounded," &c.]
--- RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/6/03 10:20:18 AM Eastern
> Daylight Time,
> bnelson301@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> > For what it's worth, nor does any of the Old
> Testament speak of Genesis 3
> > as the source of man's sin, but
> > rather of man's sinful nature with no reference
> back to Genesis 3.
> >
> >
>
> But the Jewish mystics all do!!
>
>
> "The sin of Adam was that he isolated the Tree of
> Life from the Tree of
> Knowledge to which he directed his desire. Once the
> unity of the two trees in men's
> lives was destroyed, there began the dominion of the
> Tree of Knowledge. No
> longer did unitary gushing, unrestrained life
> prevail, but the duality of good
> and evil in which the Torah appears in this aspect
> of revelation. Since the
> expulsion from Paradise, in the exile in which WE
> ALL (caps mine) now find
> ourselves, we can no longer apperceive the world as
> a unified whole."
>
> Though the term original sin is not used here, it is
> obvious that Gershom
> Scholem in his discussion of the Zohar, sees
> Adam's sin as changing the world
> for all who came after him, a very 'original' sin.
>
> The quote is from Gershom Scholem's The Messianic
> Idea in Judaism, Schocken
> Books, ppgs. 68-70.
> In the foreword: "Gershom Scholem was the master
> builder of historical
> studies of the Kabbalah."
>
> He doesn't use augustine's phrase, but he is
> certainly discussing the same
> concept.
>
> "Then God, the ruler of the aeons and the powers,
> divided us in wrath. Then
> we became two aeons."
> "Since that time we learned about dead things, like
> men. Then we recognized
> the God who created us."
>
> From The Apocalypse of Adam - a nag hammadi text,
> harper collin's edition p.
> 279
>
>
> The concept of original sin is not original. It's
> the normative understanding
> of Adam's fall as also explained in different texts
> and times by Jewish
> mystics, to whom the Torah is paramount.
>
> rich faussette
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 15:41:25 EDT