Post History

There are varying translations of Romans 5:12. For example:

> Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (KJV)....
> 
> Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned (ESV)....
> 
> On account of this as if through one man the sin into the world entered, and through the sin death; and thus to all men death went through, because by which reason all sinned (ABP)....
> 
> Therefore, as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to everyone, because {of which} all sinned (EOB)....

I read the following in an article by John S. Romanides[^1] (below footnotes renumbered and retained from original article): 

> From what has been observed, the famous expression, _eph'ho pantes hemarton_ [(ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον)], can be safely interpreted as modifying the word, _thanatos_ [(θάνατος)], which precedes it, and which grammatically is the only word which fits the context. _Eph'ho_ [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] as a reference to Adam is both grammatically and exegetically impossible. Such an interpretation was first introduced by Origen, who obviously used it with a purpose in mind, because he believed in the pre-existence of all souls whereby he could easily say that all sinned in Adam. The interpretation of _eph'ho_ [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] as "because" was first introduced into the East by Photius,[^2] who claims that there are two interpretations prevalent—Adam and _thanatos_ [(θάνατος)]—but he would interpret it _dioti_ ([διότι,] because). He bases his argument on a false interpretation of II Corinthians 5:4 by interpreting _eph'ho_ [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)], here again, as _dioti_ [(διότι)]. But here it is quite clear that _eph'ho_ [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] refers to _skenei_ [σκήνει] ([ἐφ’ ᾧ (σκήνει) οὐ θέλομεν ἐκδύσασθαι], _eph'ho (skenei) ou thelomen ekdysasthai_). Photius is interpreting Paul within the framework of natural moral law and is seeking to justify the death of all men by personal guilt. He claims that all men die because they sin by following in the footsteps of Adam.[^3] However, neither he nor any of the Eastern Fathers accepts the teaching that all men are made guilty for the sin of Adam.
> 
> From purely grammatical considerations it is impossible to interpret _eph'ho_ [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] as a reference to any word other than _thanatos_ [(θάνατος)]. Each time the grammatical construction of the preposition _epi_ [(ἐπί)] with the dative is used by Paul, it is always used as a relative pronoun which modifies a preceding noun[^4] or phrase.[^5] To make an exception in Romans 5:12 by making St. Paul use the wrong Greek expression to express the idea, "because," is to beg the issue. The correct interpretation of this passage, both grammatically and exegetically, can be supplied only when _eph'ho_ [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] is understood to modify _thanatos_ [(θάνατος)]—_kai houtos eis pantas anthropous ho thanatos dielthen eph'ho (thanato) pantes hemarton_ [(καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, ἐφ’ ᾧ (θάνατο) πάντες ἥμαρτον)]—"because of which" (death), or "on the basis of which" (death), or "for which (death) all have sinned." Satan, being himself the principle of sin, through death and corruption involves all of humanity and creation in sin and death. Thus, to be under the power of death according to Paul is to be a slave to the devil and a sinner, because of the inability of the flesh to live according to the law of God, which is selfless love.[^1]

Essentially the verse can be read one of two ways:

 1. Death passed to all human beings _because_ all sinned
 2. _Because_ death passed to all human beings, they all sinned

(I've moved the "because" to the beginning of the clause translation in #2 for clarity).

Which is the most natural reading of the original Greek text (and why)? Are both readings valid translations? How has this verse historically been understood and interpreted?


[^1]: John S. Romanides, "Original Sin According to Saint Paul", *St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly*, Vol. IV, Nos. 1 and 2, 1955-1956.

[^2]: Amphilochia, _Heroteseis_, 84, Migne, P.G.t. 101, c. 553-556.

[^3]: Ecumenius, *extracts from Photius*, Migne, P.G.t. 118, c. 418.

[^4]: Rom. 9:33; 10:19; 15:12; II Cor. 5:4; Rom. 6:21.

[^5]: Phil. 4:10.

Translation of Romans 5:12

There are varying translations of Romans 5:12. For example:

> Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (KJV)....
> 
> Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned (ESV)....
> 
> On account of this as if through one man the sin into the world entered, and through the sin death; and thus to all men death went through, because by which reason all sinned (ABP)....
> 
> Therefore, as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to everyone, because {of which} all sinned (EOB)....

I read the following in an article by John S. Romanides[^1] (below footnotes renumbered and retained from original article): 

> From what has been observed, the famous expression, _eph'ho pantes hemarton_ [(ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον)], can be safely interpreted as modifying the word, _thanatos_ [(θάνατος)], which precedes it, and which grammatically is the only word which fits the context. _Eph'ho_ [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] as a reference to Adam is both grammatically and exegetically impossible. Such an interpretation was first introduced by Origen, who obviously used it with a purpose in mind, because he believed in the pre-existence of all souls whereby he could easily say that all sinned in Adam. The interpretation of _eph'ho_ [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] as "because" was first introduced into the East by Photius,[^2] who claims that there are two interpretations prevalent—Adam and _thanatos_ [(θάνατος)]—but he would interpret it _dioti_ ([διότι,] because). He bases his argument on a false interpretation of II Corinthians 5:4 by interpreting _eph'ho_ [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)], here again, as _dioti_ [(διότι)]. But here it is quite clear that _eph'ho_ [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] refers to _skenei_ [σκήνει] ([ἐφ’ ᾧ (σκήνει) οὐ θέλομεν ἐκδύσασθαι], _eph'ho (skenei) ou thelomen ekdysasthai_). Photius is interpreting Paul within the framework of natural moral law and is seeking to justify the death of all men by personal guilt. He claims that all men die because they sin by following in the footsteps of Adam.[^3] However, neither he nor any of the Eastern Fathers accepts the teaching that all men are made guilty for the sin of Adam.
> 
> From purely grammatical considerations it is impossible to interpret _eph'ho_ [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] as a reference to any word other than _thanatos_ [(θάνατος)]. Each time the grammatical construction of the preposition _epi_ [(ἐπί)] with the dative is used by Paul, it is always used as a relative pronoun which modifies a preceding noun[^4] or phrase.[^5] To make an exception in Romans 5:12 by making St. Paul use the wrong Greek expression to express the idea, "because," is to beg the issue. The correct interpretation of this passage, both grammatically and exegetically, can be supplied only when _eph'ho_ [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] is understood to modify _thanatos_ [(θάνατος)]—_kai houtos eis pantas anthropous ho thanatos dielthen eph'ho (thanato) pantes hemarton_ [(καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, ἐφ’ ᾧ (θάνατο) πάντες ἥμαρτον)]—"because of which" (death), or "on the basis of which" (death), or "for which (death) all have sinned." Satan, being himself the principle of sin, through death and corruption involves all of humanity and creation in sin and death. Thus, to be under the power of death according to Paul is to be a slave to the devil and a sinner, because of the inability of the flesh to live according to the law of God, which is selfless love.[^1]

Which is the most natural reading of the original Greek text (and why)? Are both readings valid translations? How has this verse historically been understood and interpreted?


[^1]: John S. Romanides, "Original Sin According to Saint Paul", *St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly*, Vol. IV, Nos. 1 and 2, 1955-1956.

[^2]: Amphilochia, _Heroteseis_, 84, Migne, P.G.t. 101, c. 553-556.

[^3]: Ecumenius, *extracts from Photius*, Migne, P.G.t. 118, c. 418.

[^4]: Rom. 9:33; 10:19; 15:12; II Cor. 5:4; Rom. 6:21.

[^5]: Phil. 4:10.