A review of Alan Jacobs’ “Original Sin: A Cultural History”

This is a 2008 book long on my wishlist, partly due to comments by Scot McKnight on his old blog and in Adam and the Genome. I finally got it and read it. My review tends negative, but the book is well-written and enjoyable to read.

Augustine’s theory with its heart ripped out
A review of Alan Jacobs, Original Sin: A Cultural History

A somewhat tardy list in the Afterword gives five necessary beliefs for the form of original sin this book commends:

[1] You must believe that everyone behaves in ways that we usually describe as selfish, cruel, arrogant, and so on. [2] You must believe that we are hard-wired to behave in those ways and do not do so simply because of the bad examples of others. [3] You must believe that such behavior is properly called wrong or sinful, whether it’s evolutionarily adaptive or not. [4] You must believe that it was not originally in our nature to behave in such a way, but that we have fallen from a primal innocence. [5] And you must believe that only supernatural intervention, in the form of what Christians call grace, is sufficient to drag us up out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves.

You may spot a tension between points 2 and 5. The “pit we’ve dug for ourselves” seems at odds with being “hard-wired to behave in those ways.” But no, this is instead the bullet Alan Jacobs implores us to bite: God holds us responsible for digging a pit that someone else (Adam? Satan? God?) hard-wired us to dig. You don’t face this bullet from points 1–3 alone. It’s triggered by 4 and the reframing of responsibility in 5. It’s tough to swallow responsibility shorn of ability, but Jacobs aims to try.

But not try too hard, it seems, since the book largely sticks to demonstrating points 1–3 as if this forced 4 be true and hopefully 5 as well. Jacobs exhibits all sorts of people acting badly, whether learned eugenicists, slaveholders, Indigenous tribes or the infamous Stanford college students. He draws our attention to all sorts of writers who discern evil in these acts and the hearts they sprang from. The stories are lively, varied, witty and surely well researched. Evil is shown to be, if not universal, at least pervasive – and perhaps other circumstances would have drawn it even from those who seem free of it.

The case for pervasive bad behaviour is so conclusive that point 4 seems like nonsense. Surely Adam and Eve shared this fault with us. Even before tasting the fruit, they scorned the words of their Creator and preferred the self-stroking logic of another creature. Circumstantial evidence convicts them of being tainted by original sin as surely as all the evidence Jacobs summons against everyone since. He shows Milton’s limp wrestling with this puzzle, yet offers no fix that salvages a human starting point for evil. But if humans behaved badly even before the fall, is original sin the right term?

Older takes on the Genesis stories used a different term: humanity’s “evil inclination.” The Eden story doesn’t divulge where that inclination comes from. Perhaps it wasn’t written to tell us who to blame, but to show us ourselves. This take explains the copious evidence for points 1–3 just as well, but it transforms point 4 so we dodge the bullet.

I may seem to have left off reviewing to yammer on, but this idea, or one quite like it, happens to be central to Augustine’s formation of original sin. Given that Jacobs’ favourite adjective for his view is “Augustinian,” it’s perplexing to never find this idea in his book, aside from a brief mention that offloads it to those un-Augustinian Greek fathers of the East.

Jacobs mentions some of Augustine’s hard views, smirking at his weird take on male arousal being always sinful and shuddering at his insistence that unbaptized infants face damnation for having original sin. But he leaves out Augustine’s Realism: his belief that every human being was really, truly, physically present in Adam when he sinned.

I can see why someone who claims to follow Augustine’s anthropology might want to leave this out. Augustine located us all in Adam’s loins in seed form, tying his doctrine to a sexist view of procreation that aged … poorly. But our real presence, sinning in Adam, is one leg of Augustine’s formulation alongside being conceived in sin (the male arousal bit) and inheriting from Adam. Jacobs reduces Augustine’s view to inheritance alone without recognizing that the amputated Realism leg served a purpose.

For Augustine, it made the bullet a blank. Because we were there and even participated in some mysterious way as Adam sinned, we were all in the room when it happened, when humanity was rewired. Even if one doesn’t buy that we could possibly participate, we were at least present to be damaged by Adam when he sinned. His sin corrupted his whole body, including us in his loins. This removes the need for separate vindictive acts of God to pass Adam’s corruption on to each new person, each new soul.

Of course Augustine’s view is nonsense biology. But he used that nonsense to craft an original sin that didn’t uncouple ability from responsibility – that didn’t hold us accountable for doing what someone else forced us to do. His science hasn’t held up, but his theological instincts were more sound than his heirs who claim his doctrine while gutting its heart.

Surely there are better ways to appropriate Augustine into our own age. Jacobs’ account of how we can be ruled by our amygdala hints that sin didn’t start fresh with Adam. We could catalogue the horrors done by chimps as well, or spiders, or any creature that passed on its urge to live and/or mate at all costs. Perhaps we have an inheritance there too, explaining why “noble savages” and Rousseau’s rosy view of nature fall short, and perhaps why Adam and Eve could fall too.

With a longer view of inheritance, it becomes easier to see plausible views of real presence. We really are like Adam and Eve, facing serpents of temptation both beastly and devilish. We really do, like them, seem to have a bent for bad. We really do, like them, blame others for our wrongs. Maybe it’s not for nothing that ‘adam’ is a Hebrew word for humanity.

In one sermon, Augustine affirmed the long tradition that “Adam was one man, and is yet the whole human race.” While he came to imagine that in a literal way, it’s possible to leave off the tiny humans in Adam’s privates and see the bigger picture. Like David confronted by Nathan we can catch the twist as we hear about the exalted, bumbling humans in Eden.

Them’s us.

It’s a more nuanced point 4, but perhaps a surer road to point 5.

10 Likes

What a thoughtful review. Thanks for the insightful interaction with the book’s themes. I resonate with the weakness you point out in these type of authors assuming that their establishment of 1-3 makes 4 more of a given than they have actually demonstrated and ignores some realities that Augustine was confused/ignorant about. I understand the desire to maintain traditional positions, but not the refusal to admit when the foundations of the traditional positions have been so eroded by reality, they need re-working to be tenable.

2 Likes

I am not a fan of Augustine.

I once read something he wrote which basically said salvation was simply a matter of God randomly choosing some people to replace some of His angels. I was quite disgusted.

Anyway this summary is helpful.

I clearly do not believe in Augustine’s doctrine of original sin according to this.

  1. I think it is wrong to equate these with evil. Sometimes it is good to be selfish – perfectly natural and good for an infant. I also suspect cruelty and arrogance may sometimes be good as well – a necessity for some professions. And while I don’t think these are what God is all about, I suspect there are situations where God is cruel or arrogant for good reasons also.
  2. I don’t think “hard-wired” is the correct way to say this. Maybe hard-wired selfish as a default and we learn alternatives. Arrogance is mostly an exaggeration and imbalance often from compensation for feelings of inadequacy. We certainly have a capacity for cruelty and I don’t think this is avoidable because of biological facts, so it is really all a matter of learning when we must refrain from cruelty. AND I strongly believe sin and evil it is all very much about the bad examples of others.
  3. What is sinful are behaviors opposed to life – things which are self-destructive and acting against the directive of life to learn, grow, and become better/greater.
  4. This is obviously incorrect. Instead I believe God gave us new gifts in the use of the mind and God hoped to guide us to use these great new gifts for good rather than evil.
  5. I believe only God can change us because only God can see us clearly. Everyone else including ourselves are blind guides. But it is only supernatural because God is supernatural not because God uses some kind of magic to change us.
1 Like

I still wonder what a conversation about Genesis 2:7 as a spritual awakening (kind of first contact) would look like. Personal awakenings, in my experience, bring with them an almost effortless righteousness, that is nevertheless tarnished and dimmed by sin. Yet the Lord continues to show mercy. All to say, that point four is rather easy to believe from this perspective.

Justo González, featured by Biologos, is another important voice on the history of these awakenings that shine ever so brightly for a moment.

Mike, you’re suggesting the newly-made humans’ blip of sinlessness in Genesis 2 is like the blip of effortless righteousness some new Christians experience? And so, perhaps this is due to the first humans not having original sin and new converts having been newly cleansed of it?

If I’ve followed you correctly, I wouldn’t want to put much weight on that connection. Perhaps some new parents have a similar blip of effortless righteousness upon looking into their newborn’s eyes. I’m not sure the cause would always be spiritual conversion.

But worse, these blips are inevitably “tarnished and dimmed by sin.” That seems to suggest that there’s something more basic than original sin that draws all to sin. In which case, that more basic thing, whatever it is, would seem to be more worthy of discussion than original sin.

1 Like

As a evolutionist I wouldn’t say humans were newly-made, but born-again could be a better term. And they certainly could have maintained that perfectly illuminated state by resisting the temptation to be like God. I also wouldn’t say our experience and their’s is exactly parallel, but it seems analogous. And I am a big believer that the rational or philosophical possibility of solipsism is a feature of original sin or the fallen condition.

1 Like

I get the impression that you are in favour of Augustine?

To me that means that the doctrine falls at the first hurdle.

I am really tired of seeing people dismiss all of humanity in a single stroke just because of a view of Genesis. It is like they bury thier head in the sand and refuse to look around at the world. There is so much good and it does not all stem from sanctified christians, in fact the attitude of (some) Christians is so neagative that it negated any love that is supposed to exist.

How and evolutionist could accept this doctrine is beyond me.Anthropmorphising sin is just plain stupid, Sin is not a being in any shape or form that can be transmitted or infect like a virus. It just misunderstands what sin iis. And to try and justify it with a few misquoted from Paul is just bad use of Scripture.

I am sorry, but Original Sin should have been disimssed as soon as it reared its ugly head. God is better than that. He would not make us able to overthrow His creation so completely. Even our bad management of Creaton has not destroyed it yet, and the Earth is very resiliant. Making humaninty so weak just does not match the creation we see around us…I am more inclined to accept Paul’s first view of what Nature shows us than his suoerimposed idea that Adam somehow corruted it as well as us.

Richard

I am not up on Augustine. I have read all of the forum replies. Let me offer a view from evidence which shows that Homo sapiens were practicing evil at the time of Adam and for thousands of years before. Those practicing evil before Adam had no concept of sin because their polytheistic gods had no such command not to practice evil.
Evil was in the world but not sin.
Things changed with Adam. He was created by God and it was through Adam that God introduced himself into a polyrheisyic but Godless world. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God they committed an evil act against God, in this case a command or law not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The tree was called that because before Adam there was no knowledge of what was good and evil as defined by God. After Adam there was. So Adam brought sin into the world. The very definition of sin is practicing evil against a divine authority. As Paul said (Romans 4:15 and 7:7), there is no sin in the absence of the law. Once God gave his first command there was a divine law and disobedience to God’s law would be counted as sin.
So, “original sin” I think has to be viewed as the original propensity to do evil which we now call sin because God as well as Christ have given us the laws and commands to follow and our nature is to violate them.
Adam was the original sinner because he was the first to disobey God. It is the evil that we wage war with.

3 Likes

I think you are on shakey ground separating sin from general evil. It would make Christ’s death and forgivenss not universal. If the evil was nota sin it would not be forgiven.

In truth, any act of evil goes agaisnst God’s ideals as we know them so would constitue a sin.

Richard

Thank you, @Marshall , for this thoughtful post. I tried finding his book on Audible to dig deeper, but was not able. However, he’s got several others that re really quite thoughtful, as well. Thanks.

Did not make myself clear. Sin is not separated from evil. Sin is the practice of evil when God is known. The people before Adam did not know God. After Adam, yes died for the sins of the world.
Otherwise, please tell me how you would explain the relationship between sin and evil when evidence is clear evil was present before Adam and when Adam sinned.
There is a lot more that goes into this but trying to be brief.
Hope this is clearer. Glad to keep the discussion going if necessary.

God is still not known by the majority of the world poplation.

If Adam if the first human then there can be no sin before him, unless you are claiming there was evil inate to the world that god created. Even if the Devil is the first to sin, not Adam, itwould not spearate evil from sin.because he was fully awar eof what he was doing.

Sin would appear to be realted to cognisance, or the ability to understand good and evil, rather than to identify or know God. You can know you have done wrong without relating it to an outside force or set of rule.s. Ofcc ourse the only way to forgive yourself without Jesus or God would be by a self imposed payment or punishment. or pennance.

Richard

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.