> CB: Of course, Augustine was before Luther and Calvin, so it " is not
original with these guys."
> Furthermore, what are you talking about that it is not textually based ? The
story of Adam and Eve is that they disobeyed God , seeming to fit the
definition of "sin", and were cast out of the Garden of Eden. Not that I care
about defending Augustine's interpretation, but it is pretty obvious that there
is some textual basis for such an interpretation.
The word sin doesn't appear until chapter 4, in the Cain and Abel narrative - so - here we go - sin is an idea completely foreign to the text. Basically, in the first 3 chapters of Genesis, there are two stories that got merged into one - the first story came from people that lived near water (ie. creation out of the watery abyss) - the second story a nomadic people (ie. the garden of eden is an oasis). The second story simply provides an explanation about why human beings have to work and suffer (why they can't find that damn oasis).
Augustine's doctrine of "original sin" imports a tremendous amount of non-textual material - the idea of sin for one thing, next, the first fall (the fall of the angels) and the Fall (the "sin" of adam and eve). Futhermore, the original story has no signs whatsoever of messianism - but Augustine's doctrine does, it's based on reading that presupposes heaven and hell, angels and demons - again - material that is not found in the text ("the text" I'm refering to includes the garden narrative but also includes the rest of the pentateuch - which scholars have divided into 3 main sources, identified as "J" (Jahwist - which uses the divine name YHWH, "E" (Elohist - which uses the divine name Elohim), and "P" (Priestly source). The text of Genesis, underwent several revisions - but J is understood to be the oldest. Of course Augustine knew nothing of this, but he should have been able to see that the word sin isn't found in the garden story.
> CB: You seem to think that you are correcting what I said, and yet what you
say clearly describes a repressive paradox ( that's why you have to use so many
parathenses) just as I said. You say the idea of free will starts with
Augustine, YET, he really argued that human beings weren't free at all. That's
a contradiction.
Well, there are two parts: first, Augustine argued that people had free will, and we should understand this to mean that Augustine thought people had free will; second, that his argument, today, doesn't make sense. But this isn't *his* understanding - he thought the argument worked... so if we're going to talk about Augustine we have to see why he thought that instead of putting the critique before the content.
> CB: Both believers in God and believers in the Devil are philosophical
idealists, metaphysicians, non-materialists.
Not true, you can believe that God has physical substance which is just really hard to locate - so contemporary theology is often materialistic. Most of the more contemporary "body" "erotic" or "environmental" theologians argue that God has a corporeal existence. I'd agree with you that this is idealist, but it remains embedded in materialism in a strange way (I'm not arguing with you).
In any event... to clear something up, when I said "no textual basis" for the doctrine of original sin, I was refering to the fact that the word itself doesn't appear in the text. That's all.
F Jameson has an interesting essay on Augustine in the anthology Gaze and Voice as Love Objects.
ken