SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE ORIGIN OF SIN IN JUDAISM AND ST. PAUL

The purpose of this paper is to set forth briefly the extant opinions on the origin of evil in pre-mishnaic Judaism as well as to indicate the sources of these traditions in the writings of the period. By way of conclusion Paul's use of the data available to him in his day is considered.

The value of these observations is intended to be the following. Pre-Christian Judaism had evolved traditions relative to the relationship be­tween Adam on the one hand, and sin and death on the other. These traditions were the common property of the inhabitants of the Jewish world of learning in early Christian times and before. Among these inhabitants we find adherents of the various currents of Judaism, which naturally in­cluded the first Christian thinkers. Both the Jewish Christian and the Jew inherited and transmitted a common heritage, but each in his own way. To see the distinctiveness of each position as well as its common points should serve to underscore the peculiar point of view of each as well as to under­stand better what the interpretation of these traditions is supposed to mean.

1. Some Relevant Attitudes Prevalent in Pre-Mishnaic Judaism

The period 200 B.C.—150 A.D. (the so-called intertestamental and pre-mishnaic periods) marks a peculiar epoch in the life of Judaism. It was a period of constant crisis, of political, social, and economic turmoil, of re­ligious persecution and defection.1 Periods of far-reaching crisis normally

1 See the standard histories of the period: S. W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (New York, 1952) I, 165-285; II, 3-128; F. V. Filson, A New Testament History: The Story of the Emerging Church (Philadelphia, 1964) 1-61; W. Forster, Palestinian Judaism in New Testament Times, trans. G. E. Harris (London, 1964) ; A. Lods, The Prophets and the Rise of Judaism, trans. S. H. Hooke (London, 1937) 173-356; E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus, ed. Ν. Glazer (New York, 1961) ; S. Zeitlin, The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State (Philadelphia, 1965-1967). For the history and dating of the documents of the period, see O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. P. Ackroyd (London, 1965) 571-637; M. Josserand, "Littérature Juive," Encyclopédie de la Pléiade: Histoire des Littératures (Bruges, 1955) I, 647-657; D. Gonzalo Maeso, Manual de Historia de la Literatura Hebrea (Madrid, 1960) 335-412; R. H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times (New York, 1949) 197-230 ; D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (Philadelphia, 1964) 36-96; M. Steinschneider, Jewish Literature from the Eighth to the Eighteenth Century (New York, reprint of 1857: 1965) 1-60; P. Volz, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestament-liehen Zeitalter (Hildesheim, reprint : 1966) 4-62.

18

ORIGIN OF S I N I N JUDAISM AND ST. PAUI, 19

give rise to a literature that seeks to cope with the crisis and offer solutions.2

Now the typical literature of this period is called apocalyptic ; however the development of midrash,3 wisdom literature, and prayers mirroring the ideas and tensions of the day are equally significant in this period.

While wisdom grappled with the problems of the age in what we might call "personalistic" terms, while midrash did so in terms of a gradually canonized Scripture, apocalyptic dealt with these problems in terms of his­torical interpretations of cosmic dimensions. The literary productions of the period available to us betray several attitudes which seem to have been current coin, common cultural perspectives. Among these attitudes, one central point is "that not only divine revelation but also man's conduct and everything bound up with human ethics is to be explained not merely by reference to man's moral consciousness, but ultimately to some influence or power outside of himself, acting upon him."4 Man was in the grips of ex­ternal and overwhelming forces. The contemporary social, political, and religious crisis only underlined this culturally self-evident truth.5 The prob­lem for more perceptive individuals was why?

The prevalent way of finding an answer to this problem was to interpret current evil generally in terms of suprahuman, demonic powers, then to see the solution to the hopeless situation in terms of an imminent end.6 This standard procedure gave rise to age theories for the interpretation of his­tory. In general, the common theory was the two-age theory : now and then, this age and the age to come.7 While authors varied as to the quantity or

2 "The religion and literature of the Jewish nation may be said to be the product of its history at every stage of its development; but this is particularly so with that expression in the intertestamental period," Russell, op. cit., 16.

3 By "midrash" we mean solely and only commentary on the Scriptures as practiced in priestly and scribal circles of our period. For this meaning and a description, cf. R. Bloch, "Midrash," DBS V, 1263-1281 ; and the subsequent discussion and literature in A. Wright, "The Literary Genre Midrash," CBQ 28 (1966) 105-138; 417-457.

4 Russell, op. cit., 176. 5 For an explanation of the role of "culturally self-evident truth," see M. H. Segali,

D. T. Campbell and M. J. Herskovits, The Influence of Culture on Visual Perception (New York, 1966) 3-21, ch. 1 on phenomenal absolutism and cultural relativism.

β Russell, op. cit., 235-262; 263-284. 7 Russell, op. cit., 19, 213, 217, 223-224; esp. 266-271. For pertinent texts, see

P. Billerbeck, Kommentar sum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich, 1928) IV/2, 799-976. However for a thorough-going interpretation of these data, cf. Volz, op. cit., 63-83 ; on 72 Volz notes : "Somit stellt sich die rabbinische Lehre über das Verhältnis von Messiaszeit und kommenden Olam folgerndermassen dar: die frühere rabbinische Literatur vertritt die Gleichsetzung von Messiaszeit und kommen­den Olam (beides ist = definitive Heilszeit) ; diese Gleichsetzung wird aber von der späteren rabbinischen Theologie aufgegeben und es wird immer mehr ein bestimmter

20 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 31

duration of these ages, all agreed on the quality ; this age was evil, but the age to come would be significantly and essentially better.8 Along with the two-age theory there were equally ancient three-age theories9 and more.10

Our period witnessed a veritable passion for systematization and schema-tization of world history in a way unknown to the OT prophets.

The underlying cultural presupposition of all these age theories is the fact of God. God gives unity to history because he determines history; he is the Lord of history, intervening in its course as he sees fit. This cultural presupposition receives various emphases in our period. By way of general­ization, I think it fair to say that the Pharisees consistently coupled this

Unterschied gemacht zwischen der messianischen Periode als einem Intermezzo und dem kommenden Olam als dem endgültigen, ewigen Heilsstand. Die notwendige innere Folge davon ist, dass die Messiaszeit auch in ihrer Bedeutung immer mehr zurücktritt, ein Zeichen für die ganz natürliche Tatsache, dass im Lauf der Jahrhunderte die nationalen Hoffnungen erblassten,"

s Volz, op. cit., 63-77; 147-163; 359-407. 9 Cf. Volz, op. cit., 76: "Es gibt also etliche Stellen in der jüdischen Eschatologie

unserer Periode, die statt der Zweiteilung (Jetztzeit, Messiaszeit) die Dreiteilung haben: Jetztzeit, Messiaszeit und ewige Seligkeit, wobei der Graben zwischen der Messiaszeit und der ewigen Seligkeit gezogen ist und die erstere noch in das Gebiet des jetzigen Äons gehört. Diese Stellen sind Esr 7,26ff., die jetzige Fassung von Esr 12, Bar 29,40 und die rabbinischen Aussagen über die beschränkte Dauer des mes­sianischen Zeitalters, während Bar 74 in der Mitte steht. Dabei ist Esr 7,26ff. die einzige ursprüngliche Stelle, in der die Messiaszeit als Vorperiode näher geschildert ist und die darauffolgenden eschatologischen Akte berichtet werden; Bar 29f. in der jetzigen Bearbeitung reiht sich ihr an die Seite. Man sieht, die Ansicht von der messianischen Vorperiode taucht in der behandelten Literatur nur spärlich auf . . ." What this boils down to is a variant of the two-age theory interpreted in a way so as to make room for the messianic intervention. The division is : This Age + Messianic Period — The Age to Come. However the tendency to subdivide periods of this age is appreciably older than 4 Ezra. According to M. Testuz, Les Idées religieuses du Livre des Jubilés (1960) 138 f., 172 ff., as cited by Russell, op. cit., 226, Jubilees already offered a three-age division: from the beginning till the Exodus; from the revelation of the Law to Moses till the renewal of the world; the renewal of the world "when the heavens and the earth shall be renewed" (1,29) and God himself will descend and dwell with his people throughout eternity (1, 26).

10 E.g., 4 Ezra 3 breaks down into the following periods of This Age : in Paradise (3,4-7a) ; from Adam to the Law (3,7b-17) ; from the Law to David (3,18-22) ; from David to the construction of the Temple (3,23-27) ; cf. S. Lyonnet, "Le Péché," DBS VII, 515-516. For other and lengthier divisions, cf. Russell, op. cit., 224-229. However to say with L. Baeck, Judaism and Christianity (New York, 1958) 161, that "Jewish teaching in his (Paul's) day was that the course of history was divided into three different epochs succeeding each other"; or with W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (London, 1962) 288, that "thus the eschatology of the first century falls into the framework: this Present Age (ha-olam ha-zeh), the Messianic Era, the Age to Come (ha-olam ha-ba).

1969] ORIGIN OF SIN IN JUDAISM AND ST. PAUI, 21

belief in (post factum)11 predestination with an equally strong conviction on human free will. The Sadducees emphasized human free will only, with no particular emphasis on predetermination by God. The Qumrân current, on the other hand, has little to say about free will, insisting rather upon a more or less rigorous predestination.12 Hence it is no surprise to note that it was the Pharisaic and Qumranic circles of thought that espoused the various age theories. We might even say that as far as the Pharisees were concerned, presuppositions of divine providence or predestination coupled with equal conviction about human freedom mark the sum and substance of the basic Pharisaic world-view.

The age theories sought to offer hope to their adherents. These theories consisted chiefly in looking to the end with a detailed description of what this end would entail.13 In seeking to describe this end, the authors of the period needed some data to work on. While they did look to traditional

This meant a change in the incidence of the Resurrection. There was no compelling reason why the dead should be raised to participate in a Messianic Age which itself was 'but for a season/ and so it came about that the Resurrection was placed at the end of the Messianic Kingdom or at the beginning of the Age to Come. This is the view taken in Baruch, 4 Ezra and the rabbinical literature . . ." is misleading, to say the least. During the time of Paul the three-age theory was one among many. That in the course of history it may have become common in rabbinic literature (though this is not at all clear) does not prove anything relative to the first century when there certainly was no unanimity. What is important is that at this time history was sys­tematically and schematically arranged, and that regardless of detail, this age with its various subdivisions differed in quality from the age to come.

11 By "post factum" predestination, we mean a mitigated determinism, the knowledge of which comes only after the fact, i.e., man has no foreknowledge of what he is pre­destined to do or be, but finds out only after he does something or becomes something.

12 See W. D. Davies, Introduction to Pharisaism (Facet Books, Biblical Series #16, Philadelphia, 1967) 14-16 and 10.

13 This trait is commonly believed to be typical of apocalyptic, even the main pur­pose of apocalyptic. However this outlook was equally the common property of "early rabbinism" (i.e., the methods of teaching, the teachings and the teachers of the period of the Second Temple, that lead to the foundation of the formal rabbinate after 70 A.D.). To consider the apocalyptic streams of Judaism as something alien to early rabbinism, or to think that early rabbinism did not share the concerns of apocalyptic is methodologically and historically wrong. This has been pointed out already by G. Friedlander, Pirkê de Rabbi Eliezer (New York, reprint of 1916: 1965) lii-liii: "One lesson seems to be driven home from our study and that is the impossibility of properly understanding the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic writings without the assistance of the teaching of Rabbinics. So also vice versa, we must illustrate Rabbinical literature by the teaching of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha." For a more recent statement, cf. W. D. Davies, "Apocalyptic and Pharisaism," Christian Origins and Judaism (Philadelphia, 1962) 19-30; Russell, op. cit., 100-103 and passim.

22 T H E CATHOLIC BIBUCAI, QUARTERLY [Vol. 31

sources, specifically prophecy,14 they took a full step in a novel direction. To explain the end, they looked to the beginning. The end would be like the beginning plus.15 And while looking to the beginning, our authors could not but discern sources of their contemporary crisis as well. Now it is in the writings of this period that we find the first stirrings of exegetical (not aetiological or cultic) interest in Genesis as an account of the sources of contemporary woes, and a development of these exegetical traditions too.

2. The Exegesis16 of Genesis Texts To Explain Man's Present Plight

In the extant writings of the period under consideration, various passages of Genesis were employed to shed light on the origin of evil. On pages 32-33, we offer a schematic, chronological diagram of the various exegetical tra­ditions and their conceptual relationship. Here suffice it to set forth briefly the contents of these exegetical traditions.

A. Gn 6,1-4-

a) In the earliest extant writing, 1 Enoch 6—36 (ca. 164 B.C.),1 7 the chief text used to explain the origin of evil is Gn 6,1-4. In the exegetical traditions derived from this text, sin in its many forms is traced back to the rebellion and fall of angels. More specifically, it derives from their demon progeny, whose evil brood fill the air and hover continually over the earth, the home of their mothers1 8 (cf. 1 Enoch 6,1-6; 7,1-6; 15,2-12—16,1). This

14 Cf. Russell, op. cit., 73-103; 181-183. 1 δ This statement ought be further nuanced, but in substance it is correct. For the

nuances in rabbinism and apocalyptic, cf. Volz, op. cit., 359-361. For the application of this principle in the Pauline writings, see N. A. Dahl, "Christ, Creation and the Church," in W. D. Davies and D. Daube (eds.), The Background of the New Testa­ment and Its Eschatology (Cambridge, 1954) 422-443; cf. also Russell, op. cit., 280-284.

1 6 By "exegesis" here, we mean the explanation of the Sacred Text as practiced in early Judaism.

1 7 For dating these writings, we follow the data presented in the individual intro­ductions to the documents in R. H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1913), but in the light of the further research and discussion as presented in Eissfeldt, op. cit., 571-637, and Russell, op. cit., 280-284. Because of the present difficulty in dating given passages of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, we have not used this work in our study; cf. Eissfeldt, op. cit., 631-636. For dating the Similitudes of Enoch, we follow the conclusions of J. C. Hindley, "Towards a Date for the Similitudes of Enoch. An Historical Approach," NTS 14 (1967/68) 551-565.

1 8 Pauline circles refer to this tradition in Eph 2,2 ; Paul's demonology and angelology naturally derive from the cultural outlook of his day, concerning which see Billerbeck, op. cit., IV/1, 501-535.

1969] ORIGIN OF SIN IN JUDAISM AND ST. PAUI, 23

interpretation is also taken up by Jubilees 5,1-6 and 10,1.5-9.11 (ca. 150 B.C.), but by interpreting Gn 6,1-4 in terms of Gn 5,15fï. (Jared: cf. Jub 4,15). In these writings, the depravity of the human race is due to the se­duction of the daughters of men by fallen angels. In a variant on the tradi­tion in 2 Baruch 56,10-16 (before 70 A.D.), it is the daughters of men who seduce the angels. Qumrân likewise preserves this tradition, but there the "watchers" are simply superhuman (CDC II,16ff.). As for 1 Enoch and Jubilees, their authors make it clear that evil does not come from God, but from evil spirits, the joint product of men and angels. These spirits incite men to sin and cause evil, and this till the final judgment (cf. NT passim).

b) The book of Jubilees further attempts to clarify Gn 6,1-4 in terms of Gn 3 (Jub 3,17-26 = Gn 3,1-7.16[LXX].17-19.21.24). Here evil derives from Eve's obedience to the serpent, and Adam's obedience to Eve and dis­obedience to God. The result is a death sentence, true; yet this account seems to be a harmonization of Gn 6 exegesis with the fresh data of Gn 3. For the effects of the fall are limited to Adam (and Eve) and animal cre­ation. And Adam dies only after the "watchers" (here: angels) copulate with the daughters of men. That is, the paramount effect of the fall derives confusedly from Adam and quite clearly from the evil spirits (Jub 4,21 : watchers ; 4,29 Adam's death).

B. Gn 3

The principals of the drama of the fall are Adam, Eve and the serpent. Early Jewish exegesis assigned them varying roles.

c) In the earliest exegetical evidence we have that focuses upon Adam's sin as the cause of evil, the author makes it clear that "sin has not been sent upon earth, but man of himself has created it, and under a great curse shall they fall who commit it" ( 1 Enoch 98,4 : from the time of Alexander Jan-naeus, 102-76 B.C.). Thus Adam's fall derives solely and only from his own misconduct, and successive generations must ratify the fall by equal misconduct—there is nothing inherited about it. This interpretation be­comes the common property of (Hillelite) Pharisaic exegetical tradition. We find it in 2 Baruch 54,15-19; 56,6 (chs. 53—74 are certainly before 70 A.D.) ; in the Psalms of Solomon 9,7; cf. 5,4ff.; Josephus, Antiquities, I, par. 46; and the Tannaim R. Eleazar of Modi'im (Siphre Nm 27,14, par. 137; Horovitz (ed.), 184) and R. Juda (Siphre Dt 32,32, par. 323; Koleditzky (ed.), 183).19 For the authors in this tradition who see fit to

i9 For subsequent rabbinic tradition, cf. the texts in Billerbeck, op. cit., Ill, 227-229.

24 T H E CATHOLIC BIBUCAI, QUARTERLY [Vol. 31

mention the point, the result of Adam's sin was untimely death j 2 0 man was not created immortal.21 Yet he now dies an untimely death due to Adam, on the one hand, but entirely due to himself, on the other. This would be an application of the Pharisaic principle of post factum predestination and free will to the case of Adam.

d) In a post-70 A.D. document, this tradition is further interpreted. 2 Baruch heightens the tragedy of Adam's fall by intimating that Adam was really created to be immortal ; now the result of Adam's sin is eternal death (17,2-3; 18,2; 19,8; 23,4; 48,42-43). This last mentioned point is novel.22 On the other hand, Tannaite exegesis often expresses the idea that immortality is part and parcel of man's nature even now ; those who do not sin do not die, e.g., Elias (R. Juda, ca. 150, Pesiqta 76a; Buber [ed.] ; cf. the traditions in Derek Eretz Zuta 1 [20c] in Billerbeck IV/2, 766).

e) The oldest tradition ascribing the first sin and its consequences mainly or exclusively to Eve is Sir 25,24 (LXX, ca. 130 B.C.) : "Beginning of sin, from a woman; and because of her we all (Heb.: together) die." As the text stands it is difficult to know whether the author is referring to Gn 6 or Gn 3. "Woman" stands without an article, and may refer to womankind. Perhaps this was the author's interpretation of Eve. Be that as it may, the Life of Adam and Eve 3 and passim, and the parallel Apocalypse of Moses 24,1 and passim (ca. 70 A.D.) throughout lay almost exclusive emphasis on Eve's guilt and causality. The NT preserves this tradition in 1 Tm 2,14 (cf. 2 Cor 11,3).

f-g) The earliest writing to make mention of the serpent as really an evil spirit and the cause of the fall of man is Wis 2,24 (after 100 B.C.). This non-Palestinian writing has its best commentary in the equally non-Pales-

20 Billerbeck, ibid., I l l , 227 writes "Die letzte Stelle (i.e., Ap Baruch 54,15-19) leugnet nicht, dass der Tod wegen Adams Sünde und Schuld über die ganze Mensch­heit verhängt sei, sie fügt aber hinzu, dass die Verantwortlichkeit für das was nach dem Tode kommt, für Pein und Seligkeit auf dem einzelnen ruhe, dass also in Bezug auf sein Endgeschick jeder gewissermassen sein eigener Adam sei." The first part of this statement is simply untrue. The text says Adam caused untimely death (in Billerbeck's version : "Denn wenn Adam zuerst gesündigt und über alle den vorzeitigen Tod gebracht hat . . .") "Vorzeitig" = untimely, premature; all this means is that due to Adam, the normal human lifetime has been shortened, not that man has been deprived of immortality.

2 1 Without a preconceived theory about human immortality, it would be impossible for Jewish exegetes of this period (or even exegetes nowadays) to conclude from the Genesis narrative that man was created immortal; after all he had to eat of the tree of life to have immortality. The tree of life gave immortality, not human nature.

22 The clear mention of eternal death as a result of Adam's sin is novel; the text says nothing of man's possessing a natural immortality ; see the previous note.

1969] ORIGIN OF S I N IN JUDAISM AND ST. PAUI, 25

tinian Life of Adam and Eve and the parallel Apocalypse of Moses. Ac­cording to these sources (Life of Adam and Eve 12,lff.; 16,4; Apocalypse of Moses 16,3) the devil's envy derives from the fact that the devil and his fallen angels were expelled from heaven for refusing to adore Adam, the image of God. To take revenge for this loss of glory, the devil enlists the serpent's aid by inciting the beast to envy also ; then in the guise of the ser­pent, the devil causes the fall of the first parents. According to this tradition, then, the cause of sin was the envy of the devil, and the result was death— a death entailing more than physical death (the normal teaching of Wis­dom ;23 cf. 1 Enoch 69,11 [ca. 120 A.D.] : death which destroys everything). And as in tradition a) above, the devil and his evil spirits are still around (NT passim, especially Jn and Ap).

In early Palestinian tradition, the devil takes on various names. In TJI Gn 3,6 he is Sammael (= poison of God; cf. below), the angel of death; in 1 Enoch 69,6 he is Gadreel ( = my helper is God), one of a host of satans. Josephus, Antiquities 1, par. 41, also records the tradition of the serpent's24

envy as the source of the tragic events portrayed in Gn 3. Finally, the treat­ment of the Angel of Darkness in the treatise on the two spirits of Qumrân (1QS 3,13—4,26) would probably belong under the tradition ascribing the origin of evil to satan.25

C. Gn 3 in the Light of Gn 6,5 and 8,21

Gn 6,5 and 8,21 make mention of the impulse {yeser) of man's heart that is evil continually, from a person's youth. Jewish exegetes eventually ap­plied this datum to Gn 3.26

28 In Wis, "death" always mean3 eternal death, i.e., separation from God forever; see Lyonnet, art. cit., 538-539.

24 Josephus does not mention any evil spirit here, only the serpent that speaks as in Gn 3; for Josephus the demons are the spirits of wicked men (Jewish Wars, 7,6,3).

28 For a study of 1QS 3,13—4,26, see J. Licht, "An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits in DSD," Scripta Hierosolymitana IV (2d ed.; 1965) 88-100; and cf. W. D. Davies, MPaul and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit," The Scrolls and the New Testament (London, 1957) 157-182; and the synthesis by S. J. De Vries, "Sin, Sinners," IDB IV, 370.

26 For further explanation of the yeser, see, e.g., S. Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology: Major Concepts of the Talmud (New York, reprint of 1909: 1961) 242-292; G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim (Cambridge, Mass., 1927) I, 479-496. "It is important to observe that there was no Greek word with which the various meanings of the Hebrew ysr could be rendered. In its literal meaning the verb was commonly rendered in the LXX by plassö and the noun plasma in Is 29,16 ; Hab 2,18 ; Ps 103,14. Aquila and Sym. use it also in Dt 31,21 ; Is 26,2. But this word could not bear the figurative meaning of the Hebrew. In Gn 8,21, 'ysr of the heart* is rendered by he dianoia ; so in 1 Chr 29,18

26 T H E CATHOUC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 31

h) The non-Palestinian Apocalypse of Moses (ca. 70 A.D.) seems to view the devil as the origin of this impulse ; satan poured "the poison of his wickedness, which is lust,27 the root and beginning of every sin," upon the fruit eaten by Adam and Eve (19,3). Consequently the evil of human ex­perience derives from this impulse; or as God says to Adam: "thou hast the war which the adversary hath put into thee" (28,2). TJI seems to al­lude to this tradition also ; this is indicated by the name this Targum gives to the tempter of the Garden of Eden : Sammael, "God's poison."

i) Yet TJI Gn 3,6 would have us understand that "God's poison" does come from God. And this is the view of Palestinian exegesis. The impulse is really neutral, created by God. Sirach 15,14 notes: "God created man from the beginning, and placed him in the hand of his impulse." If the im­pulse is evil now, that is due to man himself : "For the first Adam, clothing himself with the evil heart, transgressed and was overcome ; and likewise all who were born of him" (4 Ezra 3,21 : ca. 100 A.D., a product of Sham-maite Pharisaism).28 Rabbinic tradition fully espouses this tradition, but

'in the ysr of the thoughts of his heart' = en dianoia kardias; while Gn 6,5 ('every ysr of the thoughts of his heart') pas tis dianoietai en tè kardia autou. But in 1 Chr 28,9 'every ysr of the thoughts' becomes pan enthymêma. The word is rendered by he ponería in Dt 31,21 and is passed by in Is 26,3, unless indeed our Hebrew text itself is corrupt," F. C. Porter, "Biblical and Semitic Studies," in Yale Bicentennial Publications, 136, as cited by Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, op. cit., 26, η. 3. Davies, loe. cit., notes that in Paul, the evil ysr is phronëma tes sarkos in Rom 7. Cf. also dianoia in Eph 2,3.

2 7 Lust ( = epithymia) here as well as in the Bible in general does not directly refer to the sexual impulse. Lust or desire is essentially the refusal of what God offers in place of what man, with his limited insight, craves. The mention of desire here as well as the prohibition of desire in Rom 7>7 epitomizes the sum and substance of the whole Law, both for Paul and for rabbinic tradition as well; note also that desire is the only term of the biblical sin vocabularly found in the Genesis account of the fall ; see Lyonnet, art. cit., 500 ff.

2 8 M. García Cordero, "Pecado Original," Enciclopedia de la Biblia (Barcelona, 1965) V, 950 states: "En realidad, ya en la literatura judía extrabíblica encontramos expresamente enunciada la doctrina del pecado original, como mácula que inficionó a toda la humanidad, y causa de la muerte física y espiritual de la humanidad" (he cites: Jub 3,17-31; 4 Ezra 3; 4; 7,118; Ap Bar 17,3; 19,8; 23,4; 54,15; 61,6). F. C. Grant, Ancient Judaism and the New Testament (London, 1960) 63, states the opposite: "There is no doctrine of 'original sin' in the Old Testament or in ancient Judaism—though the materials were present out of which in time the doctrine was formed," as does R. A. Stewart, Rabbinic Theology: An Introductory Study (London, 1961) 80: ". . . it is approximately true to say that the doctrine of original sin does not belong to this particular strain (i.e., rabbinism) of Judaism." The varying opinions seem to be due to the fact that the notion of "original sin" differs from author to author—and is generally not clearly defined. I believe it would be true to say that original sin as defined in Catholic textbooks of Dogmatic Theology is not to be found in the Judaism of the pre-mishnaic period.

1969] ORIGIN OF SIN IN JUDAISM AND ST. PAUI, 27

makes a few further specifications, which need not concern us here.29 Suffice it to note that the impulse, too, is interpreted within the frame of reference of the principle of predestination and free choice.

Now it is with these generally pre-Christian Jewish exegetical traditions and cultural attitudes that Paul and his contemporary learned Jewish col­leagues worked.

3. Paul's Application of Traditional Data in Rom 5,12-213 0

There can be little doubt that Paul approaches his theme in Rom 5,12-21 in typically scribal or "early rabbinic" fashion. His clear reference to the ages of history (vv. 14.20-21), his use of qal wehomer argumentation3 1

(vv. 15.17), as well as his contrast between the one and the many ( = al l ; H e b . : rabbim; vv. 12.15.16.19), his reference to the miswah system for Adam 3 2 (v. 14) and the legal terminology in the passage (vv. 13.16.18)

29 Cf. Moore, op. cit., I, 480-483 and the texts and discussion in Billerbeck, op. cit., IV/1, 468 ff. ; for Qumrân, see R. E. Murphy, "Yeser in the Qumrân Literature," Bib 39 (1958) 334-344.

30 To facilitate understanding of the argumentation that follows, I offer the follow­ing outline of Rom 5,12-21 :

In Rom 5,1-11 Paul describes the results of justification through Christ, namely the experience of Christian living. In Rom 5,12-21 he goes on to explain what made such an experience possible. v. 12: Beginning of a comparison (anacolouthon) v. 13 : Parenthesis 1 : to explain v. 12

v. 13a: Reason for v. 12 v. 13b: Objection to the reason in v. 13a

v. 14: Counter objection : statement of fact based on age theory vv. 15-17: Parenthesis 2: comparison of type and antitype

v. 15a: Statement of comparison 1 v. 15b: Proof of comparison: qal wehomer (view to objective redemption) v. 16a: Statement of comparison 2 v. 16b: Clarification of previous statement v. 17: Proof of comparison: qal wehomer (view to subjective redemption)

v. 18: Resumption of comparison begun in v. 12 v. 19 : Proof of v. 18 vv. 20-21 : Further reference to the age theory : role of the Law. 3 1 Qal wehomer, literally Hebrew for "light and heavy," is an exegetical argument

a minori ad majus (or vice versa). For a discussion and examples, see Billerbeck, op. cit., I l l , 223-226 ; the method was already in use by Hillel the Elder, ca. 20 B.C.

32 In Judaism, "Torah" might refer to both the written and the oral Law as well as to a system of salvation consisting in the observance of precepts. This is the miswah system. According to this system of salvation, for justification two conditions are necessary and suffice: (1) that the precept designating the "work" to be done be designated by God himself; (2) that man in fact fulfill the precept Thus even if a

28 T H E CATHOUC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 31

all point to how he treats his material. Now to clarify his use and application of the traditional data set forth so briefly above, we consider some salient features.

A. Ages of History

In Rom 5,12-21, Paul implies a three-age schematization : from Adam to Moses, from Moses to Christ and from Christ on. The implication of this schematization is that with Jesus being the Messiah, the age to come has come.33

B. Like the Beginning, So the End

The significant thing that Paul does is to reverse this principle. The fact that Christ and the messianic goods he brings are mentioned in all the main clauses of the passage under consideration, while Adam and his goods are relegated to subordinate clauses, as well as the fact that Paul uses qal wehomer of Adam and Christ bespeak the reversal of the principle involved. Paul's argument is: so the end, therefore the beginning. If the end could be clarified by the beginning, now that the end has come with the Christ, the beginning proves to be quite different !

In qal wehomer argumentation, the exegete has his attention psychologi­cally focused upon the homer, not upon the qal. Further Paul's consistent mention of Christ in the main clauses of his sentences intimates a like focus of attention. This means that Paul begins with Christ in his considerations. Christ is like the beginning plus. Hence to understand Adam at all in this passage, we must first understand what Paul ascribes to Christ and be sure that Adam is significantly less. In other words, if the causality ascribed to Adam is equal to or greater than the causality ascribed to Christ, we cer­tainly do violence to what Paul intends. Thus I believe we can safely say that for Paul if the life given by Christ does not reach all automatically,

work to be done is not in the written or oral Mosaic code, if it is given by God, it is Torah. Hence Abraham was justified "for having observed the law of the Most High" (Sir 44,19: referring to the command to sacrifice his son; cf. 1 Me 2,52). That mere observance of God's law could result in justification and salvation was a point upon which Paul essentially and basically disagreed with his 1st century Jewish contempo­raries. Yet Paul was fully aware of the miswah system; to sin "after the likeness of Adam" (Rom 5,14) means disobedience to an explicitly God-given precept as de­manded in the miswah system ; see S. Lyonnet, "L'Histoire du salut selon le chapitre VII de l'épître aux Romains," Bib 43 (1962) 135-136; the miswah system is character­istic of Pharisaic Judaism, cf. M. A. Cohen, "The First Century as Jewish History," in J. P. Hyatt (ed.), The Bible in Modern Scholarship (Nashville, 1965) 231-232.

33 Cf. Baeck, op. cit., 161 ff.

1969] ORIGIN OF SIN IN JUDAISM AND ST. PAUI, 29

neither does the death84 brought by Adam. And if the free gift brought by Christ does not reach all automatically, neither does Adam's sin.35

And yet in v. 19 Paul insists that due to Adam all who come before Christ have been constituted sinners, while due to Christ all will be eventually constituted just. What is the key to reconciling Paul's insistence on human freedom as well as on the universality of damnation before Christ and justi­fication after Christ? The key would be that he assumes and applies the Pharisaic presupposition of post factum predestination and human free choice.36

C. First Steps in Depersonification

In Rom 5,12-21 Paul offers no indication that satan stands behind the first sin. Normally for Paul, satan is the counterfoil of God, not of Christ (cf. e.g., 2 Thes 2,1-12). Now Paul mentions God in Rom 5,15, but never satan. This is significant.

In Rom 7,7ff.,37 Paul offers a description of the human condition, spe­cifically of Jews (cf. Rom 7,1) who cannot attain salvation in spite of the good Law. His description and method are equally scribal or "early rab-

8 4 The death involved is the opposite of eternal life, hence eternal death or complete separation from God. Paul is not interested in the origin of physical death, which for Christians is simply sleep; see Lyonnet, "Le Péché," art. cit., 536-538.

3 5 Cf. J. Cambier, "Péchés des hommes et péché d'Adam en Rom. V.12," NTS 11 (1964/65) 223-228; Dahl, art. cit., 436: ". . . in Rom V the point is that the trespass of Adam, which brought sin into the world, also caused the death of all men ; accord­ingly, the obedience of Christ and the grace of God in him which has brought justi­fication, will also bring life to all men, without difference. Salvation is as universal as sin; the Law has come in as an intermediate ordinance, which neither belongs to the first nor to the last things" ; and Moore, op. cit. I, 476, sums up the rabbinic position as follows: "Death came in with Adam, but every man has deserved it for himself; his descendants die in consequence of his sin, but not for the guilt of it. It is substan­tially what Paul says (in Rom 5,12)." However we disagree with both Dahl and Moore in that they interpret the death of Rom 5,12 as simply physical death; cf. note 34 above.

36 This presupposition has been adopted and accepted by Christian tradition, e.g., the Bible is entirely the work of God and entirely the work of man, simultaneously; Christian life is entirely the work of God and entirely the work of man, simultaneously. These are simply corollaries of the Christian teaching of divine providence and free will—a teaching that has its roots in Pharisaism.

37 Again, to facilitate understanding of the argumentation that follows, I offer the following outline of Rom 7,7-25 :

Paul here considers men living before or without Christ, specifically Jews, i.e., man with the Law (cf. Rom 7,1) who believes salvation possible through the Law (i.e., the miswah system).

A. w . 7-12: The function of the Law, theologically considered:

30 T H E CATHOUC BIBUCAI, QUARTERLY [Vol. 31

binic" : rabbinic type questions ( w . 7.13), reference to the yeser28 and the miswah system throughout,39 and a two-age theory.40 Verses 9-11 (to be explained in the context of vv. 7-12) clearly refer to Adam and his sin.41

This description of the first sin turns out to be a description of every sin. And in this description, there is no mention of satan. With this Paul seems to be in line with Hillelite Pharisaic exegetical traditions. On the other hand, the lack of reference to satan may be due to Paul's own convictions, for Paul frequently ascribes to sin what other NT authors ascribe to satan.42

However what is surprising is that in Paul's account of the genesis of sin in Rom 7,7fi\, sin is already dormant in Adam before he gets the precept from God, for with the sinful act, sin revives, springs to life.43 In more

v. 7a: Objection in rabbinic form # 1 : Does Law equal sin? v. 7b : Answer to the objection v. 7c-8a: Reason for the answer in v. 7b v. 8b : Reason for the previous statement vv. 9-10 : Example of Adam v. 11 : Reason for the previous statement v. 12: Restatement of v. 7a in positive terms to link with what follows.

B. vv. 13-24: The Jew and the Law, without Christ a) vv. 13-16: The good Law and Man without Christ

v. 13a: Objection in rabbinic form # 2 : Does the good (Law) equal death? v. 13b: Answer to the objection v. 14: Reason for the answer in v. 13b vv. 15-16: Reason for v. 14b: proof of the human situation—man acts like a

slave of sin. b) vv. 17-20: Man's inability now, i.e., without Christ

v. 17: The human situation now v. 18: Reason for v. 17 v. 19: Reason for v. 18 v. 20: Restatement of v. 17 as concluding remark

c) vv. 21-24: Therefore . . . concluding observations: v. 21 : General observation vv. 22-23 : Reason for v. 21 v. 24: Exclamation, summing up the human condition

C. v. 25: Solution to the problem of the human condition Addendum: v. 26: Restatement of the problem (perhaps with a view to further

discussion). 3 8 See Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, op. cit., 25-27. 3 9 Cf. note 32 above. 4 0 The ages referred to in Rom 7,7 if. are the period from Adam to Christ (7,7-24)

and from Christ on (7,25) ; cf. Lyonnet, "L'Histoire du salut," art. cit., 140-142. 41 Cf. Lyonnet, ibid., 133-142. 4 2 E.g., Wis 2,24: devil = Rom 5,12: sin; Gn 3,13: serpent-satan = Rom 7,11: sin;

Jn 16,11 : prince of this world = Rom 8,3: sin; see Lyonnet, "Le Péché," art. cit., 504. 4 3 NT lexicographers are ostensibly embarrassed by this word (αηαζαδ) ; W. Bauer,

W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament

1969] ORIGIN OF SIN IN JUDAISM AND ST. PAUI, 31

modern terms, we would say that the power to evil that sin is was in Adam from the beginning potentially. When the command came not to desire, this power to evil in Adam revived or sprang to life. The first man and all men after him actualize this power to evil. The neutral impulse or heart becomes evil by man's choice, and this necessarily for man is without Christ ! Adam sinned as naturally as any other man without Christ because he was with­out Christ. And that is why Adam, like men after him, follows his evil im­pulse which he thereby fashions for himself and thus begins to live under the domination of sin and eternal death. All this means is that man needs Christ essentially. In this perspective, to speak of man being created physi­cally immortal or naturally in grace would run counter to the mentality of Paul and make what he says incomprehensible.

D. Paul and Jewish Exegetical Tradition

a) Paul accepts the impulse idea as source of personal sins, including Adam's (Rom 7,7ft.).

b) He seems to presume the tradition of Adam's physical mortality— and this is quite logical since the last and superior Adam also died physically.

c) When speaking of death (thanatos, apothneskein), Paul always means eternal death, as in some of the exegetical traditions before him.

d) He dismisses the role of personified evil, i.e., satan, in the accounts of the fall; instead he introduces the role of sin {hamartia, in the singular) as power to evil springing to life because of man.

e) He accepts the contemporary age theories and adapts them to his needs.

f ) He accepts the Pharisaic presupposition of determinism and free will. g) Because of Christ, the end is not like the beginning, but the beginning

is a pale, antithetic reflection of the end. h) All the data Paul uses from Jewish tradition are transformed because

everything is interpreted in terms of Jesus Christ.

(Chicago, 1957) 53, say of the verb in Rom 7,9 that it means "to spring to life (with the loss of the force of ana-)" and offer "anablepö" as parallel ; R. Bultmann, "αηαζαδ" TDNT II, 872-873, also says there is "no emphasis on the ana-" in our passage. How­ever the word in question is not to be found in the LXX nor in Hellenistic Jewish literature, and Liddell-Scott offer no parallels with the meaning "to spring into life." If the force of "ana-" in "αηα2αδ" is denied this verb, then the basis for this denial can only be due to prior exegetical positions. And if we accept the parallel with "anablepö", the idea is "to become able to see," hence the potentiality aspect is present

32 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 31

Cause of evil: a b c d

Gn 6,1-4 evil "N.

spirits X ^

Gn 3 : Adam alone physical death

^ y presumed ^ not caused

immortality and eternal death

•ca. 164 B.C. 1 Enoch 6-36 ^ s ^ i / / ^

ca. ISO B.C.

ca. 130 B . a

ca. 100 B.C.

\ Jubilees \ Adam & spirits

• \

. 1 Enoch 98 \

before 70 A.D.

after 70 A.D.

Qumrân Ν . Ps of Solomon \ CDC 11,18 V , | >

**2 Baruch 53-74 (Hillelite)

ca. 90 A.D. Jose phus 2 Baruch 48 (Hillelite)

| N T

ca. 150 A.D.

J, Λ 1 N T

ca. 150 A.D.

R. Eleazar of Modi'im

4 R. Juda

R. Juda

4. Paul's View of Adam: Theological Conclusions

In the light of what has been said above, I believe we can make the fol­lowing conclusions relative to Adam : 1) Rom 7,7ft. depicts the situation of man at his best without Christ, i.e., man with the Law, the situation of the Jew before Christ. In this situation :

man is deprived of Christ's grace, hence Adam too ; man is sold to the power of sin, hence Adam too ; man necessarily follows his evil impulse, hence Adam too ; man cannot not commit sins, hence Adam too.

In Rom 7.7ft., the situation of the first man with the Law is just like that of every other man with the Law. Naturally those without the Law are immeasurably worse off. The truth Paul points out here is that man at his best, but without Christ, is in a hopeless condition—and this would be the formal teaching of Scripture. The reason for this hopeless condition is not Adam's sin, but the absence of Christ. 2) Rom 5,12 is an anacolouthon ; the first part of a comparison with Christ is left unfinished. Here Paul says two things. First of all, he states that through the one man, Adam (the first man of 1 Cor 15), sin entered the

1969] ORIGIN OF S I N IN JUDAISM AND ST. PAUI, 33

Gn 3 : Eve alone

Sir 25,24

with Satan Gn 3 : Satan alone serpent = satan

Wisdom / man incorruptible

Satan's envy/ Qumrân i¿

ÍQS 3,13-4,26

V f man -j- satan

Josephus serpent only

Gn 3 + 6,5; 8,21 yeser alone

Sir 15,14

1 Tm 2,14 (cf. 2 Cor 11,3)

^ A p J«

KT passim

4 Ezra (Shammaite)

*Paul Sin & yeser

Rabbinism

world (in Rom 7,7ft. this sin is potentially present in Adam because Christ's grace is absent) ; and the power called sin causes eternal separation from God, death. Paul is thoroughly uninterested in the speculative ques­tion of physical death. Further, Adam obviously meant to Paul the first human of the species ; and Paul naturally understood that there was only one first man. This notion was part and parcel of the information available to him in his day and age. In his underlining the role of the first man, the apostle is clearly conditioned by his culture. Here Adam can very well be a corporate personality, one with those who live before Christ.44

Before Christ all die the eternal death Paul speaks of, and this is his second point, specifically because all men fulfill the condition of sinning (which they must necessarily do, Rom 7 tells us, because they lack the grace of Christ). Hence he can say in v. 19 that Adam, the first man, constitutes all men sinners for the simple reason that Christ now will constitute all men righteous. If Christ alone can make a man righteous,45 as he should

44 See J. de Fraine, Adam and the Family of Man, trans. D. Raíble (Staten Island, N.Y., 1965) 142-152; much of the rabbinic material cited in these pages dates beyond the first century, and to cite the material at all only confuses the issue.

46 "Righteous" basically means the quality of behaving properly, righteousness being proper interpersonal relationships between man and God as well as between man and man, see G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (New York, 1962) I, 370 ff.; naturally NT righteousness is behavior in interpersonal relationships as "symboled" by Christ

34 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY

be and act before God and fellow man, anyone less than Christ that exer­cises any sort of causality over mankind must necessarily constitute his con­stituents sinners. Without Christ, the optimum condition can only be that of Rom 7,7ft., man with the Law. And since the first man, regardless who he might be, had the dubious distinction of setting the human race under way, all he could do was act according to his nature46 without Christ, i.e., inaugurate the condition of sin.

BRUCE J. M A L I N A

Our Lady of the Angels Seminary Novaliches, Quezon City, Philippines

in word and deed, see D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms (Society for NT Studies Monograph #5 , Cam­bridge, 1967) 82-162.

46 Thus in Eph 2,3, the Pauline theologians responsible for this writing could say that all men by nature are worthy of divine punishment. "Nature" in the Pauline writings means that aspect of things and persons such as we find them in the concrete, such as they presently exist, prescinding from what the context specifies as superadded, i.e., something as it concretely exists without something else. For example, Rom 2,14 : pagans fulfill the Law by nature, i.e., prescinding from the Law revealed by God to the Jews, see Lyonnet, "Le Peché," art. cit., 522-523.

ΛΓΙ^,

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.