THE ORIGINAL SIN OF CHRISTIANITY II

                                                              

The Invention of Original Sin: Interpretation, Power, and Misogyny

Paul of Tarsus: The First Influencer of Sin

Paul of Tarsus audience was not exclusively Jewish; he preached to Gentiles (non-Jews) who needed to understand why they required Jesus.

Original sin, though Paul does not use those exact words, became an ideal tool to illustrate the need for a savior. It was as if Paul had devised a concise theological pitch: we are all broken from the start, but there is a way out.

Paul’s ideas were not universally accepted; some early Christians, especially those of Jewish tradition, did not interpret Genesis in the same way. For them, the story of Adam and Eve did not imply inherited guilt but rather a moral lesson. However, Paul had a broader vision, influenced by his background and the Hellenistic world. His epistles, particularly Romans and Corinthians, became the foundation for what later theologians like Augustine of Hippo would elevate to new heights. A curious detail: Paul scarcely mentions Eve in his account of sin; for him, Adam is the protagonist of the fall. This is intriguing, as later theologians would place Eve at the center of blame, fueling misogynistic narratives.

Augustine of Hippo: The One Who Elevated the Dogma to New Dimensions

Who transformed the story of Adam and Eve into a dogma defining human essence?

The concept of sin began to take shape with thinkers like Irenaeus of Lyon, who referred to Adam’s disobedience as a rupture with the divine. However, it was not until Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) that original sin became a subject of fervent debate.

Augustine, a theologian with a prolific mind and an imagination driven by intense inner motivation, infused this dogma with vigor. In his works, such as Confessions and The City of God, he argued that Adam’s sin was not merely a personal error but corrupted human nature entirely. According to his perspective, we all inherit that guilt, as if it were a spiritual virus passed down through generations. How? Through procreation, specifically through sexual desire, which Augustine considered inherently problematic. This is where the issue becomes more complex.

Augustine and the Turbo-Charging of Dogma

Augustine was not alone in his ideas, but he was the one who took them to a higher level, perhaps influenced by his own life (we can say he had a rather dissolute youth, which the Church strives to downplay). He perceived sin as deeply rooted in our nature. For him, Adam and Eve’s act was not merely disobedience but a betrayal of cosmic proportions. Did Augustine believe he, too, had committed such a cosmic betrayal? Undoubtedly, he never considered it.

How did he consolidate his conception?

Councils and Consolidation: From Debates to Official Dogma

The concept of original sin did not become dogma overnight; in the 5th century, the Council of Carthage (418 CE) was pivotal in establishing original sin as doctrine. The debates were intense: some theologians, like the Pelagians, disagreed with Augustine. Pelagius, a British monk, argued that humans are born free and capable of choosing good without being marked by inherited guilt. For him, original sin was more a metaphor than a biological reality. However, Augustine and his followers prevailed, and Pelagianism was declared heresy. Thus, original sin became an indisputable truth for the Christian Church.
The Council of Ephesus (431 CE) further consolidated Augustine’s ideas against Pelagius.
The Council of Trent (1546 CE), in response to the Protestant Reformation, reaffirmed the doctrine of original sin, declaring that it is transmitted to all through generation, not imitation, and that baptism expiates it, though it does not eliminate concupiscence.

The Church, as a divine intermediary, held absolute power over humanity; this led to exploitative practices, such as the sale of indulgences, in a society obsessed with penance. Not everything was spiritual; the Church’s invocation of original sin also shaped conceptions of the body, sexuality, and, unfortunately, gender.

This doctrine profoundly impacted the perception and lives of women, as Eve was identified as the primary culprit of the fall and, consequently, the cause of physical death (since we were created “immortal”); she was even blamed for the death of Jesus Christ and all the sufferings and evils of humanity—a sort of Pandora, but in an amplified version.

Augustine and other Church Fathers contributed to this perception, associating sin with sexuality and sexuality with the female figure. The result was a narrative portraying women as temptresses, immoral, and sinfully impure.

This conception had tangible consequences over the centuries; the Church promoted and fostered a misogynistic vision that justified women’s exclusion from power, education, religious roles, and any activity that allowed them to stand out. Women were seen as the “weaker sex,” prone to sin and lust, reflected in laws, customs, sermons, teachings, and social attitudes. Accusations of witchcraft were often grounded in the idea of women as vessels of evil. Eve became the perfect scapegoat, and original sin was the excuse to perpetuate a system that degraded, subjugated, and despised women.

Misogyny in the Church Fathers

Original sin was used by the Church Fathers to reinforce derogatory notions about women, aiming to degrade and subject them to contempt.

Tertullian (160–222 CE): Called women “the devil’s gateway,” asserting that through her, man succumbed, and because of her, Christ was forced to die.

Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE): “It is Eve, the temptress, of whom we must beware in every woman.”

“The husband loves the wife as a spouse but detests her as a woman.”

Saint Gregory (504–604 CE): “Woman has the poison of an asp and the malice of a dragon.”

Saint John Damascene (675–749 CE): “Woman is a stubborn donkey, an abominable worm in the heart of man, daughter of falsehood, a chant of hell; she expelled Adam from Paradise.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274 CE): One of the most brilliant figures in systematic theology, who developed the doctrine of original sin with notable intensity and a predominant influence on misogyny, was also one of the most admirable for his wisdom. He interpreted or deduced from the Bible in a capricious, personal manner, perhaps with hidden interests or veiled intentions, as his statements, writings, deductions, and interpretations enjoyed the infallibility of a Pope; everything was accepted without anyone daring to contradict such an illustrious sage. He said: “Axiologically, woman is the indecent, the impure, morally the instrument to make man fall into sin, while man is the virtuous, the desirable, as he was created before woman to signify his superiority in dignity and dominion.”
“Strictly speaking, every woman is a monster of nature.”

The identification of women with original sin promoted an image of them as seductive, weak-willed, impure, and a source of moral and sexual corruption, a criterion that has persisted for nearly two millennia.

Iconography, Material Culture, and the Symbolic Fruit

Artistic representation and material culture played a decisive role in fixing certain elements of the myth. Although the biblical text does not specify the type of fruit Adam and Eve ate, Western tradition established the apple as a symbol of temptation. This choice was not innocent: the apple, due to its symbolic density in Greco-Roman and medieval culture, became a visually reproducible emblem in altarpieces, illuminated manuscripts, and sermons.

This process of iconization simplified and stabilized a flexible narrative, facilitating its transmission among illiterate and semi-literate audiences. At the same time, the repetition of iconography reinforced stereotypes about female guilt and the need for social control, as the image of the woman holding the fruit became a moralizing motif in religious pedagogy and moral legislation.

Imagination, Revelation, and the Dangers of Allegory

As noted, allegorical interpretation can be a powerful heuristic tool; however, when used without critical criteria, it can become a mechanism to conceal ideological assumptions. Appealing to “revelation” or the interpreter’s “intuition” allows subjective readings to be legitimized as doctrinal certainties.

When exegetical imagination replaces hermeneutical rigor, interpretations can lead to exaggerations far removed from the original text. In the case of original sin, this combination of allegory, authority, and imagination contributed to constructing a narrative that justified specific social practices and acquired the status of dogma through the force of interpretive tradition rather than the weight of the primary text.

Social Consequences and Contemporary Considerations

The social consequences of these interpretations should not be underestimated. The theological framework that placed women in a symbolically disadvantaged position fueled norms and laws that limited their freedom, public participation, and moral autonomy.

Conclusion II

The story of Adam and Eve, from which the founders of Christianity derived original sin, along with the figure of the devil—also a product of the imagination of astute Christian theologians—represents two fundamental pillars that we aim to analyze through these writings to reach the truth. To be continued.

EL PECADO ORIGINAL DEL CRISTIANISMO I

 

                                                              

La Invención del Pecado Original: Interpretación Poder y Misoginia

Introducción

El concepto del “pecado original” es una de las ideas más influyentes, controladoras y polémicas que ha transmitido el cristianismo. Un solo relato, adoptado, impuesto e interpretado hace siglos, ha moldeado leyes, culturas y mentalidades, estableciendo un marco moral que ha influido especialmente en la visión negativa de la mujer en la sociedad occidental.
En estas páginas examinaremos el origen de esta doctrina, los pensadores que la formularon, su contexto histórico y el impacto que ha tenido en la configuración de la misoginia. Este recorrido combinará teología, historia y análisis crítico para entender cómo una narrativa alegórica se convirtió en un dogma central.

El origen de la interpretación alegórica

Antes de abordar directamente la historia del pecado original, es fundamental comprender el método interpretativo que lo hizo posible. En este sentido, destaca la figura de Filón de Alejandría (20 a.C.–45 d.C.), filósofo judío helenístico, teólogo, exégeta, escritor e historiador. Su pensamiento fusionaba elementos del platonismo y el estoicismo con el judaísmo.

Aunque no fue cristiano, su influencia sobre el pensamiento cristiano fue profunda, ya que introdujo una de las herramientas más poderosas para la construcción doctrinal: la interpretación alegórica de las Escrituras. Este método, sistematizado por Filón, permitía dotar a los textos sagrados de significados simbólicos y filosóficos, más allá de su sentido literal.

Filón defendía que, como la filosofía en muchos casos, no logra sino atisbar la verdad sin lograr precisarla, dejando interrogantes que para resolverlas la razón humana necesita de la ayuda de la revelación, lo cual se trata de una especie de adivinación o de captación intuitiva, no producida por el estudio y opuesta tanto a la intelección laboriosa como a la superficial. Es un conocimiento en que el espíritu divino sustituye al espíritu humano, y es necesario para resolver las interrogantes que la razón no puede esclarecer por sí sola.” Esta noción de revelación se relaciona con lo que más tarde se llamaría imaginación, y, lleva directamente a los misterios que a menudo se han utilizado para no explicar lo inexplicable, o para ocultar mentiras producto de la imaginación y para encubrir ideas producto de interpretaciones imaginarias.

Según Filón, la Biblia es la base del judaísmo y podía interpretarse de dos maneras: literal y alegórica. La segunda fue adoptada por los padres de la Iglesia, quienes consideraban que aportaba una aplicación más vívida de las doctrinas. No obstante, esta alegoría dependía de la imaginación del intérprete, lo que abría la puerta a distorsiones, exageraciones piadosas, mentirosas o incluso tergiversaciones contrarias a la verdad, a la razón y a la literalidad del escrito interpretado, olvidando que el sentido básico de la Biblia es la literalidad.
Tal como veremos, este método alegórico, potenciado por una milagrosa imaginación creativa, sería decisivo en la formulación del pecado original.

El relato bíblico: Génesis y la caída

El relato que sirve de base a la doctrina se encuentra en Génesis 2 y 3. Según el texto, Dios crea a Adán y Eva, los ubica en el Jardín del Edén y les permite disfrutar de todo excepto del “árbol del conocimiento del bien y del mal”. Una serpiente (que después fue asociada con el diablo) persuade a Eva para comer de la fruta prohibida, ella comparte con Adán, y tras ser descubiertos, ambos son expulsados del paraíso y la humanidad queda marcada por el pecado. Suena como una fábula, ¿verdad? Pero hay mucho más bajo la superficie. Primero, hablemos del texto mismo. Las Escrituras no son la palabra literal de Dios, sino textos escritos por hombres en contextos históricos específicos, con objetivos políticos definidos. El Génesis no es un libro de historia moderna, su narrativa es una alegoría que debe entenderse en el contexto de una sociedad antigua luchando por establecer leyes y orden, fue escrito en hebreo antiguo, probablemente entre los siglos X y VI a.C, durante el período del exilio babilónico o poco antes.

En el hebreo original, la palabra para “pecado” (jatá) no aparece en este pasaje. Lo que Adán y Eva cometen es un acto de desobediencia, no un “pecado” heredable. Sin embargo, la interpretación cristiana posterior transformó este hecho en la causa de una supuesta mancha espiritual transmitida a toda la humanidad. Aquí entra la interpretación alegórica

Un detalle relevante es que el relato bíblico no asigna explícitamente a Eva la totalidad de la culpa. Es la tradición interpretativa cristiana la que magnifica su responsabilidad como la principal culpable de toda maldad, construyendo una imagen de fragilidad moral femenina que justificó siglos de misoginia. En el texto hebreo, Eva dialoga con la serpiente de forma reflexiva, mientras que Adán come sin cuestionar. Esta diferencia fue omitida o reinterpretada para consolidar un patrón patriarcal.

Esa mala conducta atribuida a Eva no fue un mero accidente, ni tampoco un mandato divino; poseía oscuros propósitos que se evidencian en las traducciones, así como en las adiciones y sustracciones de las Escrituras, y en las interpretaciones alegóricas de los padres de la Iglesia, que se distancian totalmente del texto literal.

Del judaísmo al cristianismo: cambio de significado

Si el judaísmo carecía de una noción del pecado original, ¿cómo se transformó en un pilar fundamental del cristianismo.? Podrían ofrecerse múltiples respuestas, tales como la misoginia que proporciona fundamentos, el paternalismo que ejerce control y se convierte en machismo y el choque de culturas y creencias en los primeros siglos de nuestra era, entre otros: Imagina el siglo I d.C.: El mundo mediterráneo constituye un crisol de ideas. Por un lado, el judaísmo, con su énfasis en la Torá y la relación directa con lo divino. Por otro, el pensamiento helenístico, que presenta filosofías dualistas (cuerpo vs alma, bien vs mal) y una obsesión por la redención.

En medio de este contexto, surge el cristianismo, y con él, una nueva forma de leer e interpretar el Génesis. En el judaísmo rabínico, que se estaba desarrollando simultáneamente con el cristianismo primitivo, el relato de Adán y Eva no se concebía como un pecado que contamina a toda la humanidad. Los rabinos percibían esa narrativa como una elucidación de por qué el mundo es imperfecto; sin embargo, la noción de que cada recién nacido carga con una deuda espiritual no formaba parte de sus creencias. De hecho, textos como el Talmud, compilados siglos después, enfatizan más la responsabilidad personal que una culpa heredada.

El cristianismo, por otro lado, tomó un rumbo distintivo. Los primeros cristianos, muchos de ellos judíos convertidos pero influenciados por el entorno grecorromano, comenzaron a reinterpretar el Génesis para adaptarlo a fin de que se alineara con su mensaje central: Jesús como salvador. Si Jesús vino a redimir a la humanidad, entonces debía existir algo de que redimirlos. Es aquí donde la historia de Adán y Eva comienza a transformarse y a usarse con fines de control.

El concepto de pecado original, formulado por Ireneo, Obispo de Lyon, en su controversia con gnósticos dualistas, comienza a tomar forma sin recurrir a las escrituras, pero no sin provocar debates y confrontaciones. Un factor determinante es el contexto cultural. En el mundo helenístico, nociones como el dualismo (la lucha entre el bien y el mal) y la corrupción inherente del cuerpo eran ampliamente aceptadas. Filósofos como Platón ya discutían acerca de un alma pura aprisionada en un cuerpo imperfecto. Los cristianos primitivos, al intentar articular su fe ante un público grecorromano, comienzan a entrelazar el relato del Génesis con estas ideas. La desobediencia de Adán y Eva trasciende la mera anécdota; se convierte en el instante en que la humanidad entera sucumbe a una especie de corrupción cósmica. Sin embargo, para que esta idea se estableciera como dogma, era imperativo contar con alguien que la expresara con claridad y la presentara al mundo. Ese alguien fue Pablo de Tarso.

Pablo de Tarso: El primer influencer del pecado.

Este individuo, un judío fariseo que experimentó una conversión al cristianismo alrededor del año 33 – 36 d.C., se erige como una figura fundamental en la propagación de la fe cristiana y en la conceptualización del pecado original. Sus epístolas, redactadas entre los años 50 y 60 d.C., cuya autoría aún es objeto de debate, siembran la semilla de lo que más tarde se transformará en un dogma central. El pasaje más destacado se encuentra en Romanos 5:12: “Por tanto, como el pecado entró en el mundo por un hombre, y por el pecado la muerte, así la muerte se extendió a todos los hombres, porque todos pecaron”. Pablo es quizás el primero en ofrecer una interpretación alegórica; producto de su ingenio, al afirmar de manera velada que fuimos creados inmortales, pero que, al consumir del árbol prohibido, sucumbimos a la mortalidad. El texto bíblico establece que, si comían del árbol prohibido, morirían, y evidentemente no expiraron; sin embargo, esto no implica que fueran creados inmortales.

Pablo probablemente aspiraba a comunicar su interpretación de forma persuasiva y cautivadora para una audiencia específica, con el propósito de suscitar interés al vincular la muerte, consecuencia de la desobediencia de Adán, con la condición de toda la humanidad.

Para Pablo, Adán no solo cometió un error; su falta acarreó consecuencias universales. Sin embargo, Pablo también poseía la solución: Jesús, el “nuevo Adán”, quien con su sacrificio redime a la humanidad. Es como si Pablo proclamara: “Adán nos sumió en este desasosiego, pero Cristo nos rescata”. ¿Por qué Pablo estaba tan obsesionado con esta noción? Como fariseo, Pablo estaba profundamente inmerso en la tradición judía, pero también coexistía en un contexto grecorromano donde las nociones de culpa, redención y salvación resonaban con fuerza.

Conclusión I.

El pecado original, lejos de ser un concepto bíblico literal, fue el resultado de interpretaciones alegóricas influenciadas por contextos culturales, filosóficos y políticos. Su propósito: Crear el fundamento del propósito para el cual había venido Jesucristo a salvar la humanidad. La figura de Eva fue moldeada para representar la debilidad moral femenina, usada para darle vida a ese propósito reforzando estructuras patriarcales que perduraron durante siglos. Comprender este proceso histórico nos permite cuestionar dogmas y discernir entre el texto original y las interpretaciones interesadas que lo transformaron. Continuará.

THE ORIGINAL SIN OF CHRISTIANITY I

                                                                

The Invention of Original Sin: Interpretation, Power, and Misogyny

Introduction

The concept of “original sin” is one of the most influential, controlling, and controversial ideas that Christianity has transmitted. A single story adopted, imposed, and interpreted centuries ago has shaped laws, cultures, and mindsets, establishing a moral framework that has especially influenced the negative perception of women in Western society.

In these pages, we will examine the origin of this doctrine, the thinkers who formulated it, its historical context, and the impact it has had on the shaping of misogyny. This journey will combine theology, history, and critical analysis to understand how an allegorical narrative became a central dogma.

The Origin of the Allegorical Interpretation

Before directly addressing the history of original sin, it is essential to understand the interpretive method that made it possible. In this regard, the figure of Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE–45 CE) stands out a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, theologian, exegete, writer, and historian. His thought fused elements of Platonism and Stoicism with Judaism.

Although not a Christian, his influence on Christian thought was profound, as he introduced one of the most powerful tools for doctrinal construction: the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. This method, systematized by Philo, allowed sacred texts to be imbued with symbolic and philosophical meanings beyond their literal sense.

Philo argued that, as is often the case with philosophy, it can only catch a glimpse of truth without fully grasping it, leaving questions whose answers human reason needs the aid of revelation to find a kind of divination or intuitive grasping, not produced by study, and opposed both to laborious intellection and to superficiality. It is a knowledge in which the divine spirit replaces the human spirit, and it is necessary to resolve questions that reason cannot clarify on its own. This notion of revelation relates to what would later be called imagination, and leads directly to the mysteries often used either to avoid explaining the inexplicable, or to conceal lies born of imagination and to mask ideas stemming from imaginative interpretations.

According to Philo, the Bible is the foundation of Judaism and could be interpreted in two ways: literally and allegorically. The latter was adopted by the Church Fathers, who considered it to provide a more vivid application of doctrine. However, this allegory depended on the interpreter’s imagination, which opened the door to distortions pious exaggerations, falsehoods, or even outright misrepresentations contrary to truth, reason, and the literal meaning of the interpreted text forgetting that the basic sense of the Bible is literal.

As we will see, this allegorical method, empowered by a miraculous creative imagination, would be decisive in the formulation of original sin.

The Biblical Account: Genesis and the Fall

The story that serves as the basis for the doctrine is found in Genesis 2 and 3. According to the text, God creates Adam and Eve, places them in the Garden of Eden, and allows them to enjoy everything except the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” A serpent (later associated with the devil) persuades Eve to eat the forbidden fruit; she shares it with Adam, and upon being discovered, both are expelled from paradise and humanity is marked by sin.

Sounds like a fable, doesn’t it? But there is much more beneath the surface. First, let’s talk about the text itself. Scripture is not the literal word of God, but rather texts written by men in specific historical contexts with defined political aims. Genesis is not a book of modern history; its narrative is an allegory that must be understood in the context of an ancient society struggling to establish laws and order. It was written in ancient Hebrew, probably between the 10th and 6th centuries BCE, during or just before the Babylonian exile.

In the original Hebrew, the word for “sin” (jatá) does not appear in this passage. What Adam and Eve commit is an act of disobedience, not an inheritable “sin.” However, later Christian interpretation transformed this act into the cause of an alleged spiritual stain transmitted to all humanity. Here is where allegorical interpretation comes in.

A relevant detail is that the biblical account does not explicitly assign Eve the entirety of the blame. It is the Christian interpretive tradition that magnifies her responsibility as the principal culprit of all evil, constructing an image of female moral weakness that justified centuries of misogyny. In the Hebrew text, Eve engages in reflective dialogue with the serpent, while Adam eats without questioning. This difference was omitted or reinterpreted to consolidate a patriarchal pattern.

This misconduct attributed to Eve was neither a mere accident nor a divine mandate; it had dark purposes evidenced in translations, as well as in additions and omissions in Scripture, and in the allegorical interpretations of the Church Fathers interpretations that stray entirely from the literal text.

From Judaism to Christianity: A Change in Meaning

If Judaism lacked a notion of original sin, how did it become a cornerstone of Christianity? Multiple answers could be given: misogyny as a foundation, paternalism that exercises control and becomes machismo, and the clash of cultures and beliefs in the first centuries of our era, among others.

Picture the 1st century CE: the Mediterranean world is a melting pot of ideas. On one side, Judaism, with its emphasis on the Torah and a direct relationship with the divine. On the other, Hellenistic thought, with its dualistic philosophies (body vs. soul, good vs. evil) and an obsession with redemption.

In this context, Christianity emerges with a new way of reading and interpreting Genesis. In rabbinic Judaism developing simultaneously with early Christianity the story of Adam and Eve was not understood as a sin that taints all humanity. Rabbis saw it as an explanation for why the world is imperfect; the notion that every newborn carries a spiritual debt was absent from their beliefs. In fact, texts like the Talmud, compiled centuries later, emphasize personal responsibility over inherited guilt.

Christianity, however, took a different course. The early Christians, many of them Jewish converts influenced by the Greco-Roman world, began reinterpreting Genesis to align it with their central message: Jesus as savior. If Jesus came to redeem humanity, there had to be something to redeem from. This is where the story of Adam and Eve began to be transformed and used for purposes of control.

The concept of original sin, formulated by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, in his controversy with dualist Gnostics, began to take shape without direct recourse to Scripture but not without provoking debates and confrontations.

A decisive factor was the cultural context. In the Hellenistic world, notions such as dualism (the struggle between good and evil) and the inherent corruption of the body were widely accepted. Philosophers like Plato had already discussed the idea of a pure soul imprisoned in an imperfect body. Early Christians, seeking to articulate their faith to a Greco-Roman audience, began to weave the Genesis account together with these ideas. Adam and Eve’s disobedience transcended a mere anecdote; it became the moment when all humanity succumbed to a kind of cosmic corruption.

However, for this idea to be established as dogma, it was imperative to have someone articulate it clearly and present it to the world. That someone was Paul of Tarsus.

Paul of Tarsus: The First Influencer of Sin

This man, a Pharisaic Jew who converted to Christianity around 33–36 CE, stands as a key figure in the spread of the Christian faith and in the conceptualization of original sin. His epistles written between 50 and 60 CE, though their authorship remains debated planted the seed of what would later become a central dogma.

The most notable passage appears in Romans 5:12: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to all people, because all sinned.” Paul is perhaps the first to offer an allegorical interpretation born of his own ingenuity by subtly implying that we were created immortal, but that by eating from the forbidden tree, we succumbed to mortality. The biblical text states that if they ate from the forbidden tree, they would die; clearly, they did not expire immediately, but this does not imply they were created immortal.

Paul likely sought to convey his interpretation persuasively and captivatingly to a specific audience, aiming to spark interest by linking death the consequence of Adam’s disobedience with the condition of all humanity.

For Paul, Adam did not merely make a mistake; his failure brought universal consequences. But Paul also had the solution: Jesus, the “new Adam,” who through his sacrifice redeems humanity. It is as if Paul proclaimed: “Adam got us into this mess, but Christ rescues us.”

Why was Paul so obsessed with this notion? As a Pharisee, Paul was deeply immersed in Jewish tradition, but he also lived in a Greco-Roman context where notions of guilt, redemption, and salvation resonated strongly.

Conclusion I

Original sin, far from being a literal biblical concept, was the result of allegorical interpretations influenced by cultural, philosophical, and political contexts. Its purpose: to create the foundation for the mission for which Jesus Christ had supposedly come to save humanity. The figure of Eve was shaped to represent female moral weakness, used to give life to that purpose while reinforcing patriarchal structures that endured for centuries.

Understanding this historical process allows us to question dogmas and discern between the original text and the self-serving interpretations that transformed it.

To be continued.