Hermeneia commentary on Romans regarding ἐφʼ ὧ-
The situation is much less clear with the final clause, ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον (v. 12d), which is usually translated “because all sinned.” Many different interpretations have been proposed, reflecting the extensive discussion of “original sin” by later theologians:
—One can understand ᾧ as a masculine pronoun referring back to an implied law; to “the death”; to “one man,” Adam, who passed hereditary depravity to his descendants; to the entire preceding sentence describing the circumstances under which humans sinned.
—One can take ᾧ as neuter so that the phrase ἐφʼ ᾧ gains the conjunctive sense of “because” or “so that” and refers to the involuntary participation of humans in Adam’s sin, to their inheriting his corrupt nature, to their being imputed sinful because their representative, Adam, sinned, or to independent human actions following the example of Adam.
Progress in this debate dominated by complicated theories of original and imputed sin that arose long after Paul’s time was made by Fitzmyer, who showed that although “because” is not supported as a translation of ἐφʼ ᾧ in texts prior to the sixth century c.e., several passages appear to support the consecutive sense of “so that, with the result that.” One example that does not support Fitzmyer as well as he would like is the report by Diogenes Laertius that the philosopher Cleanthes while leading his students to a public ceremony “was exposed by the wind and seen to be without an undergarment upon which he was honored with applause by the Athenians (ἐφʼ ᾧ κρότῳ τιμηθῆναι ὑφ Ἀθηναίων)” (Vitae philos. 7.169.4-6). In Arat. 44.4.1 Plutarch says that a Sicyonian statesman fell into disrepute after lawlessly mistreating a suspect: “having tortured Aristomachus on the rack in Cenchraea, they drowned him in the sea, for which reason (ἐφʼ ᾧ) Aratus enjoyed an especially bad reputation.” Neither of Fitzmyer’s examples supports a strictly consecutive sense that implies “the sequel to Adam’s baleful influence on humanity by the ratification of his sin in the sins of all individuals.”
The more likely alternative is that ἐφʼ ὧ refers to the realm in which humans were sinning, that is, the κόσμος (“world”) that is mentioned in vv. 12 and 13. That humans are responsible for spread of sin throughout the world is clearly implied by the expression πάντες ἥμαρτον (“all sinned”), although this creates inconsistencies with the later argument of the pericope, which consistently stresses Adamic causation of later actions. Paul would then be advancing a paradoxical combination of fateful influence from Adam and individual responsibility for sins. As Käsemann observed, there is precedent for this paradox in Jewish materials such as 2 Bar. 54.15, 19: “For although Adam sinned first and has brought death upon all who were not in his own time, yet each of them who descended from him has prepared for himself the coming torment.… Adam is, therefore, not the cause, except only for himself, but each of us has become our own Adam.” While certainty about Paul’s theory is hardly possible, this line of interpretation would imply that each person in v. 12d replicates Adam’s fall because of his or her own free will. In the light of v. 12a-c, however, each is sufficiently determined by the social poison of sin that choices of evil deeds remain inevitable.
I am interpreting from the above that the masculine ᾧ is the doctrine of original sin/guilt, such that Adam’s sin/guilt leads to death for us all,
while the neuter ᾧ is Adam giving us an inheritance of a corrupt sinful nature
while the third, says we are all our own Adams.
Is that a reasonable summary?
Nb I haven’t read your Heiser’s study link, it looks to be quite in depth. I might read it later.
Also, do you have any thoughts regarding Heiser’s Unseen Realm on the Divine Council?
I suppose you would agree with Heiser that the Divine Council of Psalm 82 was not other gods, and not a backdrop of polytheism from which YHWH was one of the 70 sons of El?