X
Hence 'original sin' means something quite different from whatever I have struggled to understand by that term....
Yes. Augustine was only partially correct in his formulation and presentation. But he was troubled by overwhelming sexual lust as a young man, and a Manichaean Gnostic for about a decade before his authentic conversion to Christianity. But his biggest failing was his Latinate foundation, without being a true Philologist and Theologian based on Greek language understanding. (Other theologians throughout history have noted the same of him, even while respecting his strengths and other contributions to the Faith.)
Original Sin is grossly misunderstood in general, and even moreso by modern English speakers. There was no "pre-sin sin" to apply to a single act; and Adam was not deceived and in the transgression as attributed to Eve. This is a lengthy teaching topic that is tied to Ponerology (Evil-ology) and Hamartiology (Sin-ology), etc.
This is why word meanings are so vital in translation from Greek to English. And it most often requires a phrase, sentence, paragraph, or page of English for many single words. A word-for-word exchange as translation is necessary for brevity of any resulting English version; but that just exacerbates the problems of inequitable language structures between Greek and English (with Latin in between) if readers aren't aware of such things.
The seeming complexity of singular/plural and articular/anarthrous Greek nouns is foreign to English speakers. But it isn't easily recognizable because the whole process involves reconciling something structurally and functionally missing and present in Greek with something structurally and functionally present and missing in English that are opposites in both regards.
Hamartia is an archer's term, hence the oft-repeated "missing the mark" common definition. But that "missing the mark" is almost universally perceived by English speakers as a verb, emphasizing "missing". But it is THE missing share or part as a void when articular, referring to the condition or inner state of being of mankind. This condition is present whether an archer ever picks up a bow or a quiver with arrows, and whether he ever nocks an arrow or draws back the bowstring or aims or shoots. It is the archer's condition as an inability to ever aim for and hit the target, even if he never gets up from his seat to move.
The anarthrous singular and plural refer to any and all particular inner qualities or characteristics as functional activity. All archers have different specific equipment, even if they're similar. This relates to every particular inner disposition of the heart and mind of man that is as infinitely variable as every person themselves in their thought-life. All singular hamartia is inward, with the plural articular ultimately culminating outward when there is a verb.
Hamartia, the noun, whether in singular/plural or artricular/anarthrous form, is NEVER referring to the doing and done of sinning (verb) and sins (hamartema) as resulting acts (also a noun or nouns). Hamartia is the concupiscence of the heart as inward character, as a disposition toward any particular potentiality for action. And it is both sub-cognitive and cognitive, unintentional and willful.
So it refers to the broadest scope of inner corruption of man's heart and mind without God's righteousness as the standard. Sin is self-righteousness, and it can be the "height" of a pristine Judeo-Christian morality and ethicity in one's life; or it can be the "depth" of depravity in what will manifest as murdering, raping, stealing, lying, etc. All action is the verb, but the verb is acting out the condition. And the "height" of sin is one's self-righteous disposition of the heart as character.
Hamartiology, as I hope you are seeing in a fresh light, is a hugely misunderstood area of theology. All the "archers" are running around shooting at targets, presuming they've hit them (even if they're not bullseyes). But their condition is as an archer who cannot ever hit ANY target, because the target is God's standard for inward character as outward conduct. So even if there is a convincing outward emulation of many behaviors, the source is one's own inner condition in attempting to duplicate God's standard rather than confess and agree with God that one can never have or be or do God's inward and outward standard in one's own condition and by one's own strength or ability as self-effort or accomplishment, etc.
This is kinda important to understand at a very deep and personal level for all aspects of the Christain walk, beginning with belief and repentance (which are also both nouns and verbs, the former being in the same forms as sin as a noun).
This is an epidemic of ignorance and dysfunction in the modern Church-at-large.
