Abstract

This article aims to challenge the common view that virtually all early eastern thought on the doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin favours what has come to be called Ancestral Sin, or the ‘eastern view’. To begin, Ancestral Sin is broadly outlined in conversation with several recent writers; it is noted in particular the ways in which this tradition has often been defined in opposition to quintessentially ‘western’ emphases vis-à-vis the origin of sin. This serves as a foundation for the remainder of the article, where the hamartiological thought of Tatian, Melito, Theophilus, and Irenaeus is considered against the backdrop of Ancestral Sin as previously demarcated. It is concluded that though each thinker no doubt shares important affinities with Ancestral Sin, the discordances evidenced are both too plentiful and too substantial to overlook, so much so as to cause appreciable hesitancy about a straightforward ‘eastern’ ascription. A fundamental east/west divide on original sin is, in the earliest years at least, not so certain as is sometimes assumed.