Sin: A History

Gary Anderson's examination of sin was not the sort of book I was expecting when I chose it over and instead of Sin: The Early History of an Idea. The write-up on Amazon indicated his look at sin's progression from being seen as a weight to its interpretation as a debt. While this is technically true, the work is not as balanced as that description might lead you to believe. Anderson deals with the interpretation of sin as a weight or burden in very short order; after establishing that this was the most common conception prior to the exile, he leaves it behind and spends the remainder of the book treating sin as debt.The initial chapters of the book come off as somewhat repetitive, as Anderson builds his arguments in short sections and then feels to the need to summarize them again only a few paragraphs later. As I continued to read, this problem became less apparent as he expanded the lexicon of ideas and managed to raise my level of interest. I cannot recall exactly when it clicked for me, but maybe a third of the way into the book I realized that Anderson is primarily concerned with linguistics. Theology is only secondary to him, and in fact he understands theology via language and its interpretation through translation. This is not a criticism per se, but it was unexpected. With this in mind, Anderson's arguments can be better appreciated.Some parts are more interesting than others. His examination of the interpolations into Leviticus and the importance of the Sabbatical years is of some interest but wears thin. His attempt to parse the meaning of some very similar phrases in Daniel ("when the transgressions have reached their full measure" and "to finish the transgression") seems forced. In these instances Anderson would benefit from taking a macro view of the subject book's theology (i.e., Daniel's focus on the degeneration of history), rather than focusing so exclusively on individual words and phrases. Rather, his look into Daniel and the writings of Qumran at first led me to suspect that he would turn to treating sin as a result of angelic contamination (i.e., the Enochic corpus), but he never explores these angles or their possible connections to the Christus Victor model. In view of what I know his book to have really been about, that subject matter would have been biting off more than either he or the reader could chew.Anderson connects the conception of sin as a debt between the Second Temple era and the early Christian period along an ingenious avenue. Noting the linguistic affinities between Hebrew and Aramaic (and detailing how the meaning of certain phrases would become incomprehensible if translated into Greek), he follows the development of the idea eastward into Syriac Christianity, which naturally retained the sin as debt conception. In this light, Anderson's exploration of how the Syriac fathers viewed Christ's descent into hell is my favorite part of the book. A close second is Anderson's investigation of the corollary of accruing sin as debt--giving alms as merit--in both the rabbinic and Syriac Christian traditions. It actually made me want to empty my own pockets!Anderson winds down with a look to the West at Anselm, a divisive figure who has had a profound impact on Catholicism's and Protestantism's view of Christ's atonement as a satisfaction of debts. In some ways the preceding chapters were an attempt to build up to Anselm, to make his assertions more palatable, and to give them biblical credibility. Regardless of whether you'd subscribe to Anselm's view of the atonement (and I don't), this work will still make you reconsider your past assumptions and leave you in awe of the remarkable impact of language in the history of Judaism and Christianity.

Everything arrived on time and as advertised

Who would have thunk to write a history of sin? Starting from biblical sources, Anderson argues persuasively that the metaphors for sin change through time. This change had real implications for early Judaism and Christianity, including Syriac Christianity, an Aramaic form of the religion that offers unique insight into the metaphor of sin as debt. This development of the metaphors for sin are not isolated linguistic or textual issues, but rather have actual impact on church history, including Anselm's theory of atonement and Catholic/Protestant dialogue. As a result, these metaphors for sin have practical implications in the life of the church, and this careful study of the topic can have fruitful impact on both inter- and intra-religious dialogue.It is a rare scholar who blends cutting edge biblical scholarship with extensive knowledge of Jewish and church history. Anderson's book combines academic acumen, carefully executed methodology, and clear writing. The result is an innovative book on one of the oldest topics in the history of Judeo-Christian thought.

Unfortunately, I can only give one star to Professor Anderson's book because it is not an original nor thorough and fair presentation. Professor Anderson's book is neither a history nor explanation of the origin of sin in Judaism. With a misleading title supposedly encompassing all history seemingly in both Judaism and Christianity, Professor Anderson's book conceals or omits any reference to repentance or teshuvah in Judaism. I am certain that Professor Anderson is a nice person and meant no harm, but to reference other post-biblical uses of the metaphor he wishes to find while ignoring more important Talmudic and post-biblical references to teshuvah is not good scholarship and astounding. Unfortunately, however, this and other glaring misunderstandings has the effect of a one-dimensional and flattened mischaracterization of Jewish belief. I am reminded of Rabbi Solomon Schecter's (and he certainly knew a thing or two about scholarship) labeling of Critical Bible scholarship such as that of Professor Anderson as "The Higher Anti-Semitism." The omission or any explanation of repentance, forgiveness, and the origin and types of sin in Judaism is particularly disturbing, because Anderson does fairly set forth means of repentance or forgiveness in Christianity through Anselm and belief in Jesus as the only forgiveness for original sin.Anderson also fails to set forth or explain the absence of original sin in Eden according to Judaism. The essential sanction for eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is to change immortal to a mortal nature (Genesis 3:19). That punishment is fundamentally different from the Christian notion that human nature inherits and absorbs a permanent and irrevocable natural blemish only redeemed by faith in God's Son. In Judaism we are all children of God and created in His image with responsibility or the ability to respond by controlling our impulses and behavior through our own faith and obedience to the one, whole God. Also in Judaism there is redemption by return to God through teshuva or steps towards repentance and forgiveness. There is and will always be only one incorporeal God who has granted all of us the ability to repent and return to Him by obeying His commandments. (Deut. 18-20). In Judaism repentance consists of seven steps: culpability, remorse, confession, apology, restitution, soul reckoning, and transformation. Newman, Repentance, (2010), p. 78. The genuineness of the culpability, remorse and confession is tested by the 3R's:the regret, rejection and the resolve of the sinner. The sinner is obligated to place him or herself back in the circumstances of sin and refuse such sin three times. As set forth in Genesis 4:6-7 God clearly tells Cain and all of us that while sin lies crouching at the door we can be its master. Finally Anderson fails to explain or set forth that in Judaism and Torah/Talmud the means and process of forgiveness and teshuvah are within the power of man's free will. Indeed it was not until the Protestant Reformation and the adoption of free will by the Protestants from the great Rabbis and the Talmudists, exiled by the Inquisition of the Catholic Church to the Low Countries, that the fundamental incompatibility of original sin and free will was resolved for Catholic Christians after 1000 years of contrary Catholic Church Doctrine which hugged Roman law too closely.The first third of Anderson's book is devoted to sin as a burden which Anderson claims is the most common metaphor for Sin in the Torah. Unfortunately Professor Anderson does not disclose that earlier Rabbis have often discussed sin as carrying a burden as part of a person's spiritual growth in emulating God's Attributes. Secondly, and more fundamentally Professor Anderson omits mention or discussion of the three types of sin in Judaism and in Torah. Thirdly and finally, Professor Anderson overstates the metaphor of repaying the debt from one's sin.The three types of sin are chet, pesha and avon: missing the mark, iniquity, and transgression. Chet or misstep, literally means missing the mark, as if one were shooting an arrow and hitting the outer rim of the target while missing the center. The Bible or Torah mentions this type of sin 34 times along with its metaphor. Pesha or iniquity is an intentional, conscious rebellious act such as murder, revenge, and all theft. It's metaphor is blemish. Pesha occurs 93 times in Torah or the Bible. Avon is the third type of sin. Avon is a transgression or unintentional act that has harmful consequences. It's metaphor is a proper boundary crossed over. Avon is mentioned 233 times in the Torah along with its implied metaphor of boundary. There is no mention of any of these sins by Professor Anderson nor any of their metaphors.These three types of sin arise in Torah after the sin of the Golden Calf (Chet Ha'egel). Note that this sin is of the chet or missing the mark type. Moses pleads for God to forgive the Jewish people, and He does so. After granting His forgiveness, God informs Moses of His 13 Attributes of Mercy. God tells Moses that whenever the Jewish people are in need of mercy they should cry out this prayer. One of God's traits is "noseh avon, v'pesha v'chataat." Noseh literally means "carries." Rabbi Noach Weinberg over 40 years before Professor Anderson's book, explained that God does not punish a sinner immediately; rather, He carries the sinner enabling the sinner to continue unaffected, giving the sinner a chance to do teshuva or repentance and return to Him. Heard from Rabbi Weinberg in a vaad on Tomer Devorah given in Yeshivas Torah Ohr and see R. Luzzato, Mesillat Yesharim, Ch.4, p. 41-2.The second and third portions of the book take up the supposedly new metaphor for Anderson which is sin as a blemish to be repaid. Here too, Professor Anderson misses his mark. God's calculation is not based on a quantitative reckoning of good and bad deeds. Rather, God's calculation is based on a qualitative reckoning. "Because there was found in him one worthy deed" (with reference to Jereboam's son -I Kings: 14,13). On the other hand, one iniquity may outweigh many meritorious deeds as it is stated, "One sinner (or "sin") destroyeth much good" (Ecclesiastes: 9, 18). The reckoning is made in accordance with the judgment of God, the Divine Arbiter, and only He knows how the balance sheet of merits and iniquities is drawn up. As Maimonides states, the account of good and evil is not calculated mathematically and that the evildoer may have had some hidden merit to his credit. (Kesef Mishenh).For all of these reasons, Professor Anderson's book is disaapointing.