15 / 25
We have seen that Aquinas touches on many of the
most neuralgic points in the doctrine of original sin, but
naturally he did not consider explicitly all of the issues that
confront us. The most serious new objections come from
modern biblical interpretation
13
and evolutionary theory.
14
Both sets of issues in a sense concern the historicity of the
first parents and their first sin—something that Aquinas not
only assumed, but took to be fundamental to the Catholic
doctrine of the economy of salvation.
It has become commonplace to construe modern
biblical criticism as entailing the view that the account of
the first sin in Genesis is a myth that conveys a universal
truth,
15
rather than, with classical exegesis, as a history-like
narrative conveying factual truths. While it is clear that we
cannot regardGenesis as strict history, wemust nonetheless
regard it—as did Aquinas and all traditional exegetes and
theologians—as a symbolic rendering of something that
really happened, utilizing mythic elements in a kind of
history-like or “realistic narrative,”
16
or “the history of the
first human beings in themanner of traditional narratives.”
17
Another exegetical issue has arisen with regard to
Romans 5:12-21, a passage that is central to canon 4 of
the Council of Trent’s Decree Concerning Original Sin.
Most scholars agree that the Vulgate rendering of
eph ho
as “
in whom
all men have sinned” is inaccurate. It seems
to suggest that all men were
contained
in Adam when he
sinned and participated in his act—a reading that Aquinas
rejects as well. But the Council of Trent does not employ
the text to teach this controversial position. Rather, it seeks
13 cf. Frei,
The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative
14 cf. Korsmeyer, Maldamé, and Domning & Hellwig
15 Such as Kass, for example, and, in a different way, Pagels
16 Frei, “The ‘Literal Reading’ of Biblical Narrative in the Christian Tradition,” 142-43
17 Ashley, 373