>>> James Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com> 12/23/99 04:53PM >>>
Jewish interpretations of the story of Adam and Eve have always
been different from the Christian ones. The doctrine of original
sin is not a Jewish teaching.
(((((((((((((((
CB: By the way, what is the Jewish "interpretation" of the story of Adam and Eve ? Seems to me the story itself is Jewish. And isn't it in the text that Adam and Eve AND THEIR PROGENY (everybody) lost eternal life because of the sin ? And what about the gaining of knowledge of good and evil ? Feeling shame at nudity ( the origin of clothes ?) ? Is the Jewish interpretation of the story entirely different than the Jewish interpretation ?
((((((((((((((
> Seems the Judaic version is that it was a sin or
>transgression of God's law and command, and since Adam and Eve were
>the original people, it was the original sin in some sense.
Original sin in the sense of being the first sin committed by humans. People did not inherit from then an innateky sinful nature as Christianity generally teaches.
(((((((((((
CB: Yes, but isn't the Jewish doctrine that people inherited death ( i.e. innate mortality) and knowledge of good and evil from this sin ? This is not just any old sin , but a sin with heavy implications for all of humanity, in the Jewish interpretation, isn't it ?
(((((((((((((
>
>I was the "original" one on this thread to mention sin in commenting
>on Yoshie's post. Here's what I said:
>
>***** [Joan] Copjec and [Jacob] Rogozinski are both concerned,
>though in
>different ways, to save Kant from his optimistic turn in order to
>liberate
>from his text what they consider his crucial insight: the ineradicable
>evil
>of human nature. But if this is what they are looking for, why not
>look to
>Luther and Calvin, who do truly assert just such a doctrine?
>
>(((((((((
>
>CB: Hell, why not look to the snake in the garden and original sin,
>the original source of Luther and Calvin's doctrine. The idea of
>ineradicable evil of human nature is not original with these guys.
>
>((((((((((((((
>
>
>
>Then next, Ken claimed there was no textual basis for Augustine's
>doctrine of original sin. Not that I am trying to get into defending
>Augustine's interpretation, but it is not quite accurate to say that
>there is NO textual basis for Augustine's interpretation. No
>disagreement if you are saying the Judaic original interpretations
>were not the same as Augustine's.
I think it is reasonable to say that Augustine's interpretation of the Adam & Eve story is one possible interpretation but it was not the only possible one.
(((((((((((((((
CB: As I say, I am not an Augustinian. I don't think or argue in the least that his is the only possible or even original interpretation of the story. However, it does seem to me that the story on its face has to do with sin and the origin of sin. This is not the precise Christian/Augustinian doctrine, but the Jewish and Christian interpretations , exegeses seem to be variations of a single myth ( See Levi-Strauss "Mythologique" , _Structural Anthropology_).
(((((((((((
>
>By the way, I also said in my post that Augustine' s doctrine is
>self-contradictory.
>
>It would seem that Judaism's interpretation and Augustines' differs
>not on the originality of the sin , but that Adam and Eve's
>descendants were cursed by their sin. On the other hand, I believe the
>Judaic interpretation or even text says that humans lost eternal life
>by the sin, so Adam and Eve's ancestors did pay a price for the sin.
>An interesting paradox is that in the Judaic text, Adam and Eve ate
>fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so this first
>sin was the founding of morality.
>
>My main point in commenting on the passage Yoshie posted was not to
>argue that Augustine was right or wrong, but that the two authors
>didn't seem to have very original ideas, but rather their ideas were
>as old as the idea of original sin. In other words, they seemed to be
>putting forth refried Christian doctrine as modern theory of some
>type.
Both Luther and Calvin acknowledged their intellectual debt to Augustine, in fact they insisted upon it. Calvin BTW pushed Augustine's doctrine of predestination to its extreme as to exclude free will as such. Medieval theologians and philosophers had spent a good deal of time attempting to reconcile divine foreknowledge of future events (which was implied by divine omniscience) with the doctrine of free will. Both Augustine and Aquinas argued for the compatibility of free will with predestination but they did so by offering interpretations of free will that stripped the concept of any real meaning. Calvin simply pushed this to the logical conclusion of denying free will. BTW the Puritan divine, Jonathan Edwards drew a connection between these theological debates and the debates over free will and determinism as framed by modern philosophers. Edwards defended the orthodox Cavinist position on free will by drawing upon John Locke's philosophy to argue that science was necessarily determinist (which was in turn compatible with Calvinist predestination) and that scientific determinism excluded free will. Hence, Edwards connected the debates over free will and predestination as it had been debated by theologians since the Middle Ages with the the issue of free will and determinism as it has been debated by philosophers over the past three centuries.
(((((((((((((
CB: An aspect of the dialectic of chance and necessity. The portrayal of Mercury on the old Mercury head dime has him wearing a winged -slave cap, a figurative representation of free will (winged) vs determinism ( bound like a slave).
CB
>
>I don't believe in sin period, myself, Judeo or Christian.
What a relief. I didn't think that an atheist could.
Jim F.
>
>
>CB
>
>
________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.