Romans 5:12 wrongly translated by Vetus Latina and Vulgate and misunderstood by Augustine for original sin

vetus and vulgate wrongly translating Romans 5 verse 12 originating wrong theology of peccatum originale.png.jpg

               Vetus Latina (190 CE)                                                              Vulgate  (398 CE)

In quo omnes peccaverunt is a wrong translation of the Greek.

Augustine designed his peccatum originale from a wrong translation of the Greek. “in which all have sinned” after 406 when he switched in his debate with Pelagius from a similar to a contra position including peccatum originale = original sin. Luther and Calvin and to a lesser extend Wesley bought this original sin concept from Augustine et al. 

Second point is this:  Eve is not listed by Paul but she was the first transgressor. Why did Paul not say, since WO is presumably supported, for debate sake, after Christ, why did he not say Eve and Adam was the first two to enter sin in this world?

Adam was the first male but Eve historically the first human to bring sin into this world. Yet, Paul dare to use the headship for his argument?

Some suggested translations due to the confusion created by churchfathers:

“in which all have sinned” in quo Augustine, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Klee, revived by Aberle. Beza, Erasmus Schmid. Compare Irenaeus Haeresis v. 16, 3. Not by Stengel, Reithmayr, Bisping, Maier.

Augustine = omnes ille unus homo fuerunt. All men in the loins Hebrews 7:9-10.

“upon that which is Adam” Theophylact with Photius.

Quia omnes peccarunt …..Adamo peccante   Bengel as seen correct by Meyer.

Ipsu actu, quo peccavit Adamus     Koppe, Olshausen, Philippi, Delitzsch, Kahnis, Klöpper.

“all have [individually] sinned” Reiche, Rückert, Tholuck, Fritzsce, de Wette, Maier, Baur, Ewald, Umbreit, van Hengel, Mehring, Hofmann, Stölting, Thomasius, Mangold following Theodoret.

“on the ground of the fact that , i.e. because, all sinned”.

Adam as example, so Pelagius, Erasmus. Weiss, Märcker.

“They were sinful” Picard and Aberle  It is not an adjective so they are wrong in their translation.

Original sin, Calvin, Flacius, It does not say original sin. It is a reading into the text as Meyer also complains about in 1884: 199.

“all have sin” Melancthon saying: omnes habent peccatum. It is a verb not a noun and Melancton translated wrongly.

“they have sinned”  Meyer 1884: 199

“as then all would besides have well deserved this severe fate for themselves by their actual sins” J. Müller.

“This severe fate they would have all moreover well merited” Neander and Messner contra Meyer who says it is fanciful.

“about which there can be no doubt in so far as all have in point of fact sinned” Ernesti (cognitive approach)

“on the ground of the fact that all have sinned”

Because all have sinned (Luther with dieweil)

“Under the more definite condition that all have sinned” Scmidt.

“that, whereunto all sinned” Ewald

“death was present at the sinning of all those to whom it has penetrated, and it has not been invariably brought about and introduced only through their sinning, nor always only for each individual who sinned” Hofmann