{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031216361679224973, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002152852529601722, 'mean_word_length': 4.406976744186046, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Pauline Concept of Original Sin, in Light of Rabbinic Background

The received tradition in rabbinic studies, both of the more conservative and of the more progressive sort, is that rabbinic thought does not have a concept of original sin.2 Surely this is one of few large topics on which G. F. Moore, W. D. Davies, E. E. Urbach and E. P. Sanders fully agree. It is particularly interesting that such unanimity of opinion can be found, but it is also noteworthy that not one of these major scholars takes time to define what exactly original sin is. Even so extensive a recent work as E. P. Sanders's Paul and Palestinian ]udaism says categorically: 'It is not necessary to discuss here Rabbinic speculation on the origin of sinful disobedience. This sort of theological speculation, like speculation concerning the nature of the world to come, lies outside the scope of the Rabbinic pattern of religion'.3 Sanders continues: