Ship of Fools: Original Sin due to Vulgate mistranslation of Romans 5:12?

Thread: Original Sin due to Vulgate mistranslation of Romans 5:12? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028396

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

As I have posted in Purgatory, I have discovered that Augustine's doctrine of the Fall is in part based on a mistranslation of Romans 5:12 in the Vulgate; apparently epi* should here be translated as "since when" rather "in whom".

This was news to me and I wondered if other shipmates had come across this theory before? Is it one of those things commonplace in Academia that has not filtered down to bums on pews or is Jack Mahoney out of the mainstream?

*Apologies for the transliteration but that is how it is in the book and my Greek is too rusty for me to reliably work back to the original form.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

FWIW, as I have no real expertise in the original language (it's all Greek to me!) I tend to resort to seeing how different translations render the passage. Biblegateway gives me lots of translations, some I've never heard of. In this case, it seems fairly universal that they have variations on the same basic underatanding

quote:
sin entered the world through one man
NIV

quote:
through one man sin entered the world
NKJV

quote:
sin came into the world through one man
ESV

quote:
Sin made its entry into the world through one man
Phillips

quote:
through one man sin entered into the world
DLNT

quote:
through one man the sin did enter into the world
YLT

A few have "by one man" rathe than "through one man", but I'm not sure how significant that is.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Epi literally means on. Definition here.

The only epi in verse twelve is the fourth last word which is part of this bit:

quote:
and so death spread to all because all have sinned

(NRSV)

"on the basis of" seems to me to be the best fit of meaning.

I'm not sure where "since when" rather "in whom" fits into that. On the basis of all sinning ....?? [Confused]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Yes, "epi" is part of the phrase that usually gets translated "since all sinned" or "because/on the grounds of the fact that all sinned." What we actually have is "eph", which is the contracted form you get when you have "epi" plus a word starting with "h" next. In this case, a dative ("which"). So what you want to do is look up the usages of epi followed by a dative noun or pronoun.

I hated prepositions when I studied Greek because so many of them just ARE slippery, and what's worse is, it matters whether the noun that follows is in the dative or accusative or genitive case. It makes a difference to the meaning. And on top of all that, you get the metaphorical uses.

My memory tells me that of all the prepositions I had to learn, epi was hands down the one the slipperiest one with the most different meanings. Although I don't recall "when" being among them. But "because/on the grounds of" is in there. You can Google it, like I did, since I'm no authority on prepositions. I found it on biblehub under the Thayer entry. (Sorry I can't do links, I found it on my tablet which is very limited)

So I think this discovery is no discovery at all. Really, it would be sort of surprising if someone suddenly popped up after 2000 years of study and translation to announce correctly that everybody else had got it all wrong. Not impossible, but very unlikely.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Beware of comparing translations and then pronouncing a best fit.

All translators, however hard they try, have pre-existing notions about doctrine andf take these assumptions into their work.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

I empathise with LC's wariness concerning prepositions! The smallest particles have always caused the most trouble.

The only really useful way, I think, to bring some assistance to the cause is to see whether the surrounding text might determine how a particle is being used in any particular context. So in Romans 5:12 the question would be: How is Paul using the preposition epi in light of what he has being saying thus far (and might also be saying thus forward...)?

5:12 is linked by Paul to what he has being saying up to that point, so worth looking to see if his argument depends on there being “since when” rather then “in whom” by the time he reaches verse 12. It might put some light on whether Paul intended to say that death is a result of all people having sinned in Adam, or death came first with the consequence that all sinned. Or something else, I suppose.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

The theology gets my goat anyways. We don't die because of sin. We were created mortal by God; not immortal.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The theology gets my goat anyways. We don't die because of sin. We were created mortal by God; not immortal.

Some people argue that if there had been no Fall, we would all have been taken like Enoch.

Genesis 5:24

quote:
Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him.

Moo

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

OK, let's do some philology.

The Vulgate translation of eph hO is in quo ("in him"). This is an entirely accurate word-for-word translation of the Greek, and an entirely plausible rendering of the sense of the sentence. All of the translations Alan cited have this sense. This is how Augustine understood it: a reference to anticipatory sinning "in him (ie. Adam)" affecting all humans prior to any personal sin.

But, it's not the only possible way to reading the Greek. eph hO can also be read as a contract form of epi toutO hoti, which would be a causative (something like 'because' or 'in as much as,' etc.).

Supporting the second option is Paul's use of the phrase in 2 Cor 5:4:

quote:
...we groan under our burden, because (eph hO) we wish not to be unclothed but to be further clothed...

and Phil 3:12

quote:
...I press on to make it my own, because (eph hO) Christ Jesus has made me his own.

In fact, the only clear use of eph hO meaning "on whom" is Phil 4:10:

quote:
...you have revived your concern for me, for whom (eph hO) you were indeed concerned...

(you are concerned epi someone in Greek, not 'for' them).

It's going too far to call the Vulgate a mistranslation. But, it does flatten down the options, where the Greek has an ambiguity. Those who argue for the Vulgate's reading normally do so on the following basis: if Paul didn't believe in original sin, he'd have found a less ambiguous way to make the point (which would be very easy, and more mellifluous, in Greek).

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Which man? Two to four hundred thousand years ago? And Enoch died. That's what not being around any more and taken by God mean.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Not when it's highlighted as an unusual occurrence in a long list of other people, all of whom wind up with "and he died." Clearly what happened to Enoch was something other than "and he died."

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The theology gets my goat anyways. We don't die because of sin. We were created mortal by God; not immortal.

I agree with that; and it's entirely clear in Scripture!

Adam and Eve were mortal, the death that came into the world was spiritual death.
They were never intended to live forever physically.

quote:
Genesis 3 v 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden

Whether you take these verses - and indeed the entire Creation/Fall account - literally or metaphorically, etc, you can see that the expulsion from the Garden was to prevent the pair from eating the fruit of a second tree: one that would give them immortality. You could interpret this as an act of mercy in that A & E would have been immortally and eternally sinful without the benefit of redemption and salvation.

Immortality, therefore, is conditional upon redemption. It is not our nature to be immortal.

[ 12. October 2014, 08:49: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The theology gets my goat anyways. We don't die because of sin. We were created mortal by God; not immortal.
I agree with that; and it's entirely clear in Scripture!

Adam and Eve were mortal, the death that came into the world was spiritual death.
They were never intended to live forever physically.

quote:
Genesis 3 v 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden
Whether you take these verses - and indeed the entire Creation/Fall account - literally or metaphorically, etc, you can see that the expulsion from the Garden was to prevent the pair from eating the fruit of a second tree: one that would give them immortality. You could interpret this as an act of mercy in that A & E would have been immortally and eternally sinful without the benefit of redemption and salvation.

Immortality, therefore, is conditional upon redemption. It is not our nature to be immortal.

My interpretation of the test is slightly different. I think the author is saying that had Adam and Eve not eaten the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, they would have been free to eat from the tree of life, and would've lived forever which was the God's original intention.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I hated prepositions when I studied Greek because so many of them just ARE slippery

By sharing a pillow with a non-native speaker, I've learned just how slippery, as well, English prepositions can be.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Prepositions are almost impossible to define. I haven't counted them, but I have been told that the Oxford English Dictionary has one hundred twenty-eight meanings for of. I believe it.

I am convinced that when people are learning a language, they should not memorize prepositions, but prepositional phrases. If, by our standards, the preposition has several different meanings, the learner should memorize one phrase with each meaning.

Moo

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The theology gets my goat anyways. We don't die because of sin. We were created mortal by God; not immortal.
I agree with that; and it's entirely clear in Scripture!

Adam and Eve were mortal, the death that came into the world was spiritual death.
They were never intended to live forever physically.

quote:
Genesis 3 v 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden
Whether you take these verses - and indeed the entire Creation/Fall account - literally or metaphorically, etc, you can see that the expulsion from the Garden was to prevent the pair from eating the fruit of a second tree: one that would give them immortality. You could interpret this as an act of mercy in that A & E would have been immortally and eternally sinful without the benefit of redemption and salvation.

Immortality, therefore, is conditional upon redemption. It is not our nature to be immortal.
My interpretation of the test is slightly different. I think the author is saying that had Adam and Eve not eaten the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, they would have been free to eat from the tree of life, and would've lived forever which was the God's original intention.

Even then, they would have had to have eaten the fruit of the tree of life in order to live forever; they are not created naturally immortal.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
So I think this discovery is no discovery at all. Really, it would be sort of surprising if someone suddenly popped up after 2000 years of study and translation to announce correctly that everybody else had got it all wrong. Not impossible, but very unlikely.

I agree with this as well, and I also include the matter here of the notion that without sin we would still die. I am not convinced of that at all.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

We could have been wrong all these years. But this particular idea does not support the conclusions asserted - even if it were correct. As LC says, why in the best part of 2000 years has no other Christian Biblical scholar reached this conclusion? And the discovery of some long-lost document does not mean that other documents traditionally used are thereby wrong. We need to ask why the newly-found one was lost, why were the others relied upon.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
We could have been wrong all these years. But this particular idea does not support the conclusions asserted - even if it were correct. As LC says, why in the best part of 2000 years has no other Christian Biblical scholar reached this conclusion?

Possibly because very few of them were comparing the Vulgate with the original Greek?

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And the discovery of some long-lost document does not mean that other documents traditionally used are thereby wrong. We need to ask why the newly-found one was lost, why were the others relied upon.

I don't understand what you are getting at here. What long-lost document? Neither the Vulgate nor the original have been lost at all, AFAIK.

As far as I am concerned, Hart has answered my question (although I would still be interested in comments on Jack Mahoney).

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
We could have been wrong all these years. But this particular idea does not support the conclusions asserted - even if it were correct. As LC says, why in the best part of 2000 years has no other Christian Biblical scholar reached this conclusion?
Possibly because very few of them were comparing the Vulgate with the original Greek?

Nope, this won't fly. Even if we assume nobody but nobody since Jerome touched the Greek (yeah, right) up to Erasmus' day, there is still all the digging that's been done since the revival of interest in the Greek during the Renaissance (we're talking 500 years right there). And the Vulgate has always been there, hovering like a huge hovering thing over the cultural landscape from the time Jerome did it.

Since the Reformation went on at the same time, and the Bible text was the basis of it, you can bet your best doughnuts that every theologian and scholar of any denominational background has been combing the Greek, and often the Vulgate as well, with a fine tooth comb.

Nope, sorry, ain't going to work.

{Is it here that I should allude to the well-known scholarly maxim "Publish or perish"? It's wise to keep that in mind any time a new and startling claim is made about the Biblical text. It's damn hard to find a dissertation topic when the field's been plowed as thoroughly as this one has--and the temptation to start "reaching" is intense.}

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
We could have been wrong all these years. But this particular idea does not support the conclusions asserted - even if it were correct. As LC says, why in the best part of 2000 years has no other Christian Biblical scholar reached this conclusion?
Possibly because very few of them were comparing the Vulgate with the original Greek?

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And the discovery of some long-lost document does not mean that other documents traditionally used are thereby wrong. We need to ask why the newly-found one was lost, why were the others relied upon.
I don't understand what you are getting at here. What long-lost document? Neither the Vulgate nor the original have been lost at all, AFAIK.

As far as I am concerned, Hart has answered my question (although I would still be interested in comments on Jack Mahoney).

As to the first, I suspect that somewhere between 10 to 15% of doctoral theses over the last 100 years at least have done comparisons of the Vulgate with the Greek - to say nothing of the great examples of Jerome (one of the 4 Western Doctors AIRC) and Erasmus.

As to the second - that was a more general comment than addressing any particular matter on this thread. To the extent that it was a tangent, I apologise.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

LC & Gee D

Fair enough re my first point. I wasn't sure, hence the question mark.

The theory that the Biblical foundation for Original Sin was very shaky did seem a bit too good to be true.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

As a general question of translation, I think it's pretty psychologically natural for us not to notice another possible translation when we're so used to hearing a specific one. Figuring out a Greek sentence is often somewhat like a puzzle, and once one solution clicks, the brain stops looking. I suppose it's a bit like some of those optical illusions where one figure could be two things and once we've seen one the other is hard to spot.

A recent example which I find more compelling is the question of how to translate pistis christou. We're so used to understanding that as an objective genitive (faith in Christ) that it's easy to never even consider the grammatical possibility of reading the genitive subjectively (the faith Christ had). Most of us when reading Greek don't actually get out our schoolboy grammar books and consider in turn each possible meaning of the genitive; a more or less subconscious process picks one. It takes a certain cunning to decide to press on and consider other alternatives.

Posted by Motylos (# 18216) on :

The following quotation may intersect a rather tangential line on the above discussion.

quote:
The Hebrew word אדמ — ’ādhām, as in Ugaritic, Phœnician etc. means ‘human(ity)’ …. In the Qur’ān however, it appears only in the sense of the name of the first human …. This interpretation can already be found in the Septuagint. In the Hebrew story of creation אדמ — ’ādhām was translated as ’άνθρωπος ‘human’ until Genesis 2:15; however in the next verse, when God places humans in the Garden of Eden, the Hebrew word was understood as a name and was transcribed as Αδαμ. The interpretation of this word as a proper noun ‘Adam’ can already be found in later books of the Hebrew Bible such as I Chronicles 1:1 and Hosea 6:7. This is also the understanding of this Luxemberg in the New Testament (for instance Romans 5:14 et passim) and in fact Chrustianity in general until the early modern period.
Robert M. Kerr, ‘Aramaisms in the Qur’ān and Their Significance’ p. 166 in Ibn Warraq (2014) Christmas in the Koran

There is a fundamental fallacy in treating Adam as a man, or indeed the man through whom sin entered the world — because Adam — ’ādhām is us. It fits in with Paul’s seesaw of comparing Adam with Christ, but it is not theologically sound from the original text.

Posted by Motylos (# 18216) on :

It should read “the understanding of this lexeme”. [Ultra confused]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0