Anat

I guess you just proved King-Jamesism. God must have been thinking of Shakespeare's words about cowards dying many times when he said this.

Wads4

Thanks for those exampls;--yes , contradictions--that's it.

Rick Sumner

There are two passages in the Pauline corpus that might support the notion of original sin--Rom.5.14 and 1Cor.21-23. Let's take a look at both of them.

The first instance, Rom.5.14, only holds up if one suggests that those who have not transgressed as Adam did refers to infants. In this model, those who sin are being contrasted with those who do not, and the result is the same either way, thus all are punished for Adam's sin.

Many commentators, however (eg. Dunn in the WBC series) find a contrast instead of type of sin. Those who sin as Adam did die the same as those who sin in other ways. Paul is repeating a rather commonplace view that all sin, just as Adam did, and all will be punished by death, just as Adam was. He is not articulating original sin.

If Jiri would like to present a case that Paul is referring to infants, I'd be interested in seeing it. If he wouldn't, he cannot find original sin in Paul, despite his assurance that Paul is proof positive of the concept in Judaism. Because 1Cor.15.21-22 might have original sin read into it, but it is not what Paul is saying.

To begin, we'll take a look at 2Baruch 54:15,19

“For although Adam sinned first and has brought death upon all who were not in his own time, yet each of them who has been born from him has prepared for himself the coming torment. … Adam is, therefore, not the cause, except only for himself, but each of us has become our own Adam”(Charlesworth's OTP)

This, of course, is what Paul is saying. It is not that we are being punished for our sin, it is that we have become like Adam by sinning. Adam is an archetype, and this is quite common in Judaism contemporary with Paul. Adam brought death into the world, but our sin sustains it. Such a reading is probably more geared toward consistency than our material, which is written with the occasion in mind, but if a position is to be articulated, that is what it is.

This reading is borne out by Rabbinic material discussing the matter of death and sin, thus, for example, R. Juah b. Ilai thought those without sin would not die. In similar fashion, several Rabbi's, on their death beds, wondered what sin they had comitted such that they would perish. That they were perishing for Adam's sin is not even entertained.

In similar fashion, death was sometimes seen as an atonement for your sin, not as a punishment for Adam's, eg Yoma 8.8.

Sanders points out, however (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 173, n128), that the standard Rabbinic opinion was that death was a natural process. Sin or good deeds might prolong or shorten your life, they would not prevent death.

Original sin is not to be found in first century Judaism. It is not to be found in Paul. It is not to be found in the Rabbis. It is not to be found in intertestimental works. It is not to be found in the DSS--which have quite the preoccupation with Adam. It is not even to be found in Philo, and his "new Adam." Not only is it not there, it is contrary to what is there.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Does the phrase I've placed in bold suggest there were some upon whom death was not brought or is it just awkward in English and simply means "everybody since Adam"?

Rick Sumner

It's "everybody since Adam."

greyline

So why didn't the scribe make God say that instead of what was actually written? This is what I mean by adding stuff that isn't there.


There are several million Young and Old Earth Creationists who'd like to know the same thing, I'm sure.

Solo

5:12 starts the passage and the first verse makes the startling revelation that sin came to the world through one man and death through sin, so death spread to all men because all men sinned.

next comes the law, but let's forget about the law; it is an aside; to Paul's mind, Adam's fleshy nature (it is not said but clearly implied) was inherited and if his progeny died, it was proof (to Paul) they were sinners. If that looks a little bit a logical daisy chain, it's not my fault.

No such luck! Judaic orthodoxy recognizes grades of "sin" from open defiance of God's law, to sins of "passion" to something very vague called "cheit" which should really not be a category of sin but of bad luck !!! The semantic root of the Hebrew word comes from "to miss the mark, to stumble, or to sin unconsciously, in good faith" !!!

This is deeply ingrained in the Jewish culture, and failing to grasp this sin, one cannot hope to understand the meaning of many things Jewish, among them Kafka, Freud, Angst generally, Paul of Tarsus and the "misfortunes" of Job !!! Job exclaims in desperation : "Behold, he will slay me; I have no hope. This will be my salvation, that a godless man shall not come before him ! " (13:15-16) So is God to blame for the fall of an innocent man ? Of course not ! The Lord will requite whom he will. So the problem must be with Job: "How many are my iniquities and my transgressions ?" prays Job, the godly Jew, "make me know my transgression and my sin" (13:23)

No way Paul refers to infants in 5:14; let's not play silly headgames ! He refers to the original original sin, the sin of Adam, the sin of Israel (e.g. Lev 4:13, 1 Ki 8:34-36, Neh 10:33, Dan 9:20, Hsa 4:8, 10:8 ), the generalized unease and sense of guilt Jews have before their God and through which they theologize or rationalize calamities in their personal and communal lives.

This, of course, is not what Paul is saying. Rom 15:15: "For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many". The clear intent here is to parallel the two as unique human creations of God, and to contrast the first Adam's flesh-power of trespass with the "second Adam's" spirit-power of redemption. To Paul, the curse and the gift are transferable by their very nature !

Jiri

Rick Sumner

I quite happily invite the reader to discern whether your response has even addressed the argument presented, much less rebutted it.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Solo

Thank you, Rick. I appreciate the admission, grudging as it may be, that other than having me declare Paul in favour of burning infants in hell, you have no argument.

Jiri

Amaleq13

There is no such admission in his statement just as there is apparently nothing but faith supporting your response. Where he offered scholarship in support of a conclusion, you offered your beliefs that you've read into the text. Only one of you has actually presented an argument and it isn't you.