The following comes from:
Panayiotis Papageorgiou, “Chrysostom
and Augustine on the Sin of Adam and its Consequences: A Study of Chrysostom’s ‘Homily
10, On Romans’ and Augustine’s Interpretation of it in Contra Julianum,”
August 23, 1991, pp. 14-16:
The most interesting thing about
Augustine's chapter 27 of his Contra Julianum is that there he quotes
extensively from Chrysostom's Homily 10 on Romans, thus indicating that he must
have had the entire homily in front of him, but misses the important passages,
[62] where Chrysostom actually addresses directly the question of ‘propagation’
of the sin of Adam and the inheritance of his guilt by posterity. The passages
I am referring to are two. The first one is:
But what does he mean when he
says: ‘Inasmuch as all have sinned?’ After Adam fell into sin, even those who
had not eaten of the tree all became mortal because of him. [63]
Here Chrysostom explicitly states
that he understands St. Paul's ‘’Εφ ω παντες ημαρτον;’ to mean that ‘all became
mortal’ because of Adam's fall. Chrysostom correctly understands ‘’Εφ ω’ to mean ‘in that’ and not ‘in
whom’ (in quo), which the Latin translation of the Vulgate would imply. [64]
Augustine skips right over this text and explanation. [65]
The second passage occurs, at a
later point, where Chrysostom raises the question about, “Paul's saying that
through the disobedience of the one many became sinners.” [66] and points to
the two possible interpretations of it. The first one, which does not seem
unlikely, he says, is that because of Adam's sin and his change to a mortal
state, all who came from him would be the same, i.e. mortal. St. Paul gives us
ample proof that such a thing is possible, he explains. [67] The second
possible interpretation, which Chrysostom sees, coincides with the position
which Augustine holds: That because of Adam's disobedience another one might
become a sinner, i.e., that another person may have the sin or guilt of Adam's
transgression. Chrysostom finds this notion illogical and unjust, since this
other person has not become a sinner by his own will or action (οικοθεν), and rejects it. [68]
Notes for the Above:
[62] It is possible that he just
misunderstood those passages which were in conflict with his theology and so
ignored them in his line of argumentation, but it is also equally possible,
that he deliberately chose to ignore them knowing that they were in conflict
with his positions and thinking that Chrysostom was the one in error. Augustine
probably felt that he was thus protecting Chrysostom's memory.
[63] Homily 10, I, 2, On Romans, P.G. 60, 474: “.Τι δε εστιν, ‘Εφ ω παντες ημαρτον;” ‘Εκεινου πεσοντος, και οι
μη φαγοντες απο του ξυλου γεγονασιν εξ εκεινου παντες θηντοι.”
[64] See Joseph Freundorfer, Erbsünde und Erbtod Apostel Paulus: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetiche Untersuchung über Römerbrief 5:12-21, Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, (Münster i.W. : Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1927) pp. 132-134. According to Freundorfer (and
Kelly, p. 354) the Latin translation available to Ambrosiaster Rom 5:12 read
"... so death spread to all men in whom (in quo) all sinned."
Ambrosiaster was most probably the first one to understand the in quo of
Rom 5:12 as a relative conjunction with its antecedent Adam. In Phil.
3:12, however, in quo is a causal conjunction translated as because
or inasmuch as or as in that and need not have caused
misunderstanding of the original meaning. Hence Romans 5:12 would read:
"Through one man (or 'because of one man') sin entered into the world, and
through sin death; and thus death came upon all men, in that all
sinned." Julian of Eclanum objected to the term ‘in quo.’ He proposed
‘quia’ (because) as a more accurate translation of ‘εφ’ ω.’ See also Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve and the Serpent, (New
York: Random House, 1988) p. 109, 143; For more on the term ‘εφ’ ω,’ see D. Weaver, "From Paul to Augustine"; G. Bonner,
"Augustine on Romans 5:12", in Studia Evangelica 2 (1968): 242-247;
S. Lyonnet, "Le Péché Originel et l'Exégèse de Rom. 5:12-14," in Recherches
de Science Religieuse 44, I (1956): 63-84; also by Lyonnet, "Le Sens
de εφ’ ω en Rom. 5:12 et l'
Exégèse des Pères Grecs," in Biblica 36 (1955): 427-456; A. d'Alès,
"Julien d' Eclane, Exégète," in Recherches de Science Religieuse
6 (1916): 311-324.
[65] M. Wiles in The Making of
Christian Doctrine, p. 56, thinks, that Rom. 5:12 is only secondary support
for Augustine's doctrinal belief, and not its true foundation. It seems,
however, that for Augustine, the phrase in Rom. 5:12,“in quo omnes
peccauerunt” was official biblical confirmation of his theory of seminal
identity. See also M. Wiles, footnote 1 on the same page, for other opinions on
this issue.
[66] Homily 10, On Romans, P.G. 60,477: “Το λεγειν δια της παρακοης του
ενος αμαρτωολους γενεσθαι πολλους.”
[67] Ibid.
[68] Ibid.
