|
Paul the Fabricator The Anatomy of a
Scriptural Invention An Essay in Textual
Analysis, Narrative Logic, and Theological Engineering by Finn, the druid 1. Introduction: The Problem of Romans 5:12 Romans 5:12 is the keystone of Paul’s anthropology: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death through sin; and thus death passed upon all
men, for that all have sinned.” (KJV) This single sentence furnishes Christianity with its
overarching story: 1.
A human problem
(universal sin and death), 2.
caused by a historical
act (Adam’s disobedience), 3.
requiring a universal
solution (Christ’s sacrificial death). But does the Hebrew Bible say what Paul claims? The answer, as we will see, is no. This essay dissects that construction. 2. Genesis 2–3: What the Text Actually Says 2.1 The absence of “sin” The Hebrew nouns ḥēt’
and ḥaṭṭā’—“sin”—do not appear in Genesis 2–3. The man and woman: ·
eat, ·
hide, ·
explain, ·
receive consequences, but are never accused of sinning. Thus Paul’s opening claim—“sin
entered the world”—has no textual basis. 2.2 Eve’s innocence of intent Genesis 3:6 states: “The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and
that it was pleasant to the eyes, and desirable to make one wise.” Nowhere does the text say she knew which tree she was
eating from. Genesis 2:9 lists both trees as “pleasant to the
sight,” and only the Tree of Life is explicitly described as centrally
located (“in the midst of the garden,” v.9). The Tree of Knowledge is not
said to be central. This ambiguity is structural. Eve’s epistemic position is therefore not one of
defiant rebellion but misidentification in a garden with two “pleasant”
trees. 2.3 Adam’s motivations are opaque When confronted, Adam says: “The woman whom You gave to be with me—she gave me of
the tree, and I ate.” (Gen 3:12) There is: ·
no declaration of intent ·
no confession of defiance ·
no admission of disobedience ·
no divine accusation of
guilt Adam’s statement, if anything, distances him from
intentional rebellion. 2.4 Consequence, not punishment God describes changes only in functional terms: ·
toil, ·
pain-in-childbearing, ·
resistance from the ground, ·
expulsion to prevent access
to the Tree of Life. No moral categories are introduced. Genesis describes a transition, not a fall. 3. Mortality in Eden: The Text Denies Paul’s
Premise 3.1 Humans were not immortal Genesis 3:22 is explicit: “Lest he put forth his hand and take of the Tree of
Life, and eat, and live forever…” This establishes: ·
humans were not immortal
prior to the act ·
immortality requires
perpetual access to the Tree of Life ·
mortality is natural,
not a punishment Thus the couple’s expulsion merely prevents the antidote to
death. It does not introduce death. 3.2 Death existed in Eden God makes “garments of skin” (Gen 3:21). Unless we presume metaphysical leather: ·
an animal has died ·
death predates Adam’s act ·
death is not a post-sin
innovation ·
creation includes predation,
decay, and organic termination The presence of a Tree of Life presupposes
death. Paul’s claim “death through sin” is thus a reversal of
Genesis’ logic. 4. The Hebrew Bible Rejects Inherited Guilt The foundational verse is Ezekiel 18:20: “The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not
bear the iniquity of the father…” This flatly contradicts the Pauline doctrine that
Adam’s action affects all. Deuteronomy 24:16 reiterates the same principle. Nowhere in Judaism—Torah, Prophets, Writings, Second
Temple literature—is there a doctrine of inherited guilt from Adam. Paul’s proposal has zero Jewish precedent. 5. Paul’s Rhetorical Technique: The Typological
Engine Paul’s real aim is not to explain Genesis but to
establish Christ’s cosmic significance. Romans 5:15–19 shows this clearly: ·
“For if many died through
one man’s trespass…” (v.15) ·
“By the one man’s
disobedience the many were made sinners…” (v.19) ·
“So
by one man’s obedience shall many be made righteous.” (v.19) Paul is constructing a symmetry:
This symmetry is not derived from Genesis. To achieve this, he must: 1.
inflate Adam’s act into a
cosmic disaster 2.
universalize guilt 3.
universalize death as
punishment 4.
universalize Christ’s remedy Paul engineers the problem to justify the solution. 6. Did Paul Know What Genesis Actually Says? Yes. Paul was trained “according to the strictest sect of
our religion” (Acts 26:5). As a Pharisee he studied Torah intensively. He would have known: ·
Genesis does not use
the word “sin” ·
Genesis does not
depict a fall ·
Genesis does not say
death is a punishment ·
Genesis does not link
Adam to human mortality ·
Genesis does not
propose inherited guilt ·
the Hebrew Bible explicitly
rejects inherited guilt ·
the Tree of Life implies
prior mortality Paul was not misreading from ignorance. 7. Fabrication: Definition and Application 7.1 Definition A fabrication is: a statement known to be textually unsupported,
yet presented as scriptural truth to achieve a doctrinal aim. This does not necessarily imply malicious intent. ·
deliberate construction ·
rhetorical engineering ·
invention under the guise of
interpretation 7.2 Does Paul meet this criterion? Yes. ·
sin entered through Adam ·
death entered through sin ·
death passed to all ·
all are guilty in Adam None of these appear in Genesis. Paul’s innovation is not interpretation but theological
architecture. 8. The Theological Motive Behind the Fabrication Paul needs: ·
universal sin →
universal saviour ·
inherited guilt →
inherited grace ·
one cause → one cure ·
Adam → Christ Without Adam’s sin as universal cause: ·
Christ’s universal function
collapses ·
Law vs. grace cannot be
framed ·
Gentiles cannot be included ·
Christ’s death cannot be
explained as necessary ·
Paul’s gospel loses
coherence Thus Adam’s sin becomes the essential precondition
for Pauline Christianity. Paul builds his theology on a problem he invents. 9. The Narrative Paul Manufactures vs. the
Narrative Genesis Provides 9.1 Genesis narrative structure Genesis 2–3 is: ·
a tale of maturation ·
a transition from innocence
to responsibility ·
a shift from divine
provision to human autonomy ·
a narrative of human
differentiation, not corruption ·
a tale of boundaries, not of
guilt ·
an etiological myth
explaining labour, childbirth, and the need for wisdom There is no moral catastrophe. If anything, the story is about the birth of adult
consciousness. 9.2 Paul’s narrative structure Paul recasts the story into: ·
primal sin ·
inherited guilt ·
collapse of human nature ·
cosmic disorder ·
universal condemnation ·
need for supernatural rescue There is no textual basis for this in Genesis. Paul’s narrative is superimposed, not extracted. 10. Conclusion: The Anatomy of a Scriptural
Invention On the basis of: ·
philology (absence of
“sin”), ·
narrative analysis (absence
of rebellion), ·
theology (absence of
inherited guilt), ·
textual logic (presence of
death pre-transgression), ·
and Paul’s rhetorical
motives (typological construction), we must conclude: Paul did not derive his claim from Genesis. Paul constructed a doctrinal claim and
retrofitted it onto Genesis. Therefore, Romans 5:12 is a fabricated
interpretation—an invention, not an exegesis. Paul’s theological architecture required a universal
problem. In Finn’s sharper framing: Paul solved a problem that did not exist by inventing
the problem. It is the most influential and malevolent fabrication
in the history of Western religion— On the Condemnation of Augustine of Hippo Finn contra the Buddha and Paul Fudge words used in Christianity |