Orthodox vs. Catholic Original Sin / Mistranslation?

[ComeHome2Rome]

Listening to an Ancient Faith Radio Podcast called Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy: Orthodox & Roman Catholic Differences 2 by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick 10/27/2009.

It was just said that the Latin Vulgate mistranslated the original Greek causing it read in Latin that all men sinned “IN” Adam sin rather than in the original Greek that all men sinned “BECAUSE” of Adam’s sin.

That one word difference made a gigantic difference in the theology between the two Churches.

I found the Podcast interesting and wonder what others on here think about it.

 

[vames]

Good question.
Most Orthodox sites that deal with the “in” vs. “because” in the Epistle to the Romans say that only the latter translation is correct, so I assumed that this is definitively decided by the rules of Greek grammar and the teaching of Orthodox Church. But can the text have different interpretations, as this site suggests?
sourozh.org/orthodox-faith-texts/consequences-of-adams-sin.html

 

[dmar198]

Listening to an Ancient Faith Radio Podcast called Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy: Orthodox & Roman Catholic Differences 2 by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick 10/27/2009.

It was just said that the Latin Vulgate mistranslated the original Greek causing it read in Latin that all men sinned “IN” Adam sin rather than in the original Greek that all men sinned “BECAUSE” of Adam’s sin.

That one word difference made a gigantic difference in the theology between the two Churches.

I found the Podcast interesting and wonder what others on here think about it.

First, I think their point re: the Greek translation is debatable. There are many reputable, modern translations that render it as “in,” and I think they can be successfully defended.

Second, I think that the translation “because of Adam we all sin” still teaches the doctrine of original sin, so they don’t get out of it that way. The doctrine of original sin teaches that Adam passes on to us a nature that is (1) deprived of sanctifying grace and (2) predisposed to sin. If we all sin because of Adam, that establishes number 2, and the fact that we have to be baptized in order to receive salvation proves number 1 – and that is taught in the context – see Romans 6:1-5, and remember that the original Greek doesn’t have chapter divisions, so the beginning of chapter 6 is in the context of the end of chapter 5.

Third, I think their focus on that single word is unbalanced, because our doctrine doesn’t depend on that passage alone, and in fact original sin would be a clear teaching of the Bible and of the Fathers even if Romans 5 didn’t say it. People forget that St. Paul elsewhere says that there is a law of sin which is in his flesh and which wars against the law of the Spirit – Romans 7:23 – and in the context of that passage he makes it clear that without grace filling our nature and transforming it, we can’t be saved. That is a clear indication that we are born with a fallen nature predisposed to sin, and that’s all the doctrine of original sin says.

Finally, I don’t think the Orthodox necessarily disagree with the doctrine of original sin as it is supposed to be presented. The problem, I think, is that so many Catholics in history have improperly taught that original sin includes an inherited guilt from Adam, when it is really a nature that lacks sanctifying grace, rather than a nature with inherent guilt. The grace of baptism is necessary to fill us up with grace, and the Orthodox believe that. The only other part of original sin is the fact that we are predisposed to sin – and I don’t think the Orthodox really disagree with that either. It’s just that when you put those together as they’ve been put together by some theologians in history, you get this idea of inherent guilt, which isn’t part of the doctrine at all, and which the Catechism explicitly rejects in CCC 404-405: “Original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’ – a state and not an act. Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice.”

For all those reasons, I don’t think the Orthodox can really get away with saying that the Bible doesn’t teach original sin, and I don’t think they necessarily would disagree if only we could all be careful to explain exactly what we mean and exactly what we don’t. Anyway I hope that helps. God bless!

 

[dvdjs]

An On-line Catechism of the Orthodox Church has this to offer, from ‘The Mystery of Faith’ by Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev:
orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx

CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM’S SIN
…

The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race. This is elucidated by St Paul: ‘Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned’ (Rom.5:12). This text, which formed the Church’s basis of her teaching on ‘original sin’, may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef’ ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as ‘because all men sinned’ but also ‘in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned’. Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what ‘original sin’ means.

If we accept the first translation, this means that each person is responsible for his own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. Here, Adam is merely the prototype of all future sinners, each of whom, in repeating Adam’s sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins. Adam’s sin is not the cause of our sinfulness; we do not participate in his sin and his guilt cannot be passed onto us.

However, if we read the text to mean ‘in whom all have sinned’, this can be understood as the passing on of Adam’s sin to all future generations of people, since human nature has been infected by sin in general. The disposition toward sin became hereditary and responsibility for turning away from God sin universal. As St Cyril of Alexandria states, human nature itself has ‘fallen ill with sin’; thus we all share Adam’s sin as we all share his nature. St Macarius of Egypt speaks of ‘a leaven of evil passions’ and of ‘secret impurity and the abiding darkness of passions’, which have entered into our nature in spite of our original purity. Sin has become so deeply rooted in human nature that not a single descendant of Adam has been spared from a hereditary predisposition toward sin.

The Old Testament writers had a vivid sense of their inherited sinfulness: ‘Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me’ (Ps.51:7). They believed that God ‘visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation’ (Ex.20:5). In the latter words reference is not made to innocent children but to those whose own sinfulness is rooted in the sins of their forefathers.

From a rational point of view, to punish the entire human race for Adam’s sin is an injustice. But not a single Christian dogma has ever been fully comprehended by reason. Religion within the bounds of reason is not religion but naked rationalism, for religion is supra-rational, supra-logical. The doctrine of original sin is disclosed in the light of divine revelation and acquires meaning with reference to the dogma of the atonement of humanity through the New Adam, Christ: ‘…As one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous… so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Rom.5:18-21).

Fr Damick’s premise is contracted by Metropolitan Hilarion, who provides Patristic support for the putative Latin mistranslation. I think that Fr Damick’s modern American Orthodox perspective departs from traditional teachings.