We could draw yet more seeming contradictions in Jewish thought along the same lines, for example: >**Ecclesiasticus 25:24 (DRB—25:33)** > >**From the woman** came the beginning of sin, and **by her** we all die --- >**Wisdom 2:24 (DRB)** (proto-/quasi-New Testament theology, less classically Jewish, more Hellenistic) > >But **by** the envy of **the devil,** death came into the world Yet one would need to take each in the same sense in order to see contradiction—contrary to the respective contexts, which me must respect. *Romans 5* is in the context of drawing parallels between Christ and Adam. For this reason, since Christ is obviously taking away sin, we automatically think of Adam, his type, as bringing sin originally (i.e. without reference to Eve). *1 Timothy 2* It may seem sexist—those who are sensitive to what the world now considers 'sexism' (men and women not being the same in every way, which they never have and never will be), the Bible is not your book—but St. Paul seems to be indicating that women are more prone to deception than men in his argumentation in this chapter, citing it, in fact, as a reason they ought not, preferably, to teach or have authority over other men. This is not imossible, since we know that in general women are more emotional than men on the whole—exceptions, *by definition*, notwithstanding. This doesn't mean women are not as dignified as man, only that certain things men do are not optimal for women; the most important work on the planet is saving souls, and we can't take any risks, even if it offends certain people. I don't think this can be contested seriously. However, St. Paul's citation of Genesis as to the woman being decieved seems more analogical/anecdotal than rigidly doctrinal—'women are always decieved.' Only that if they are more prone to deception, then in the realm of doctrine and being carried away by false ones, this risk cannot be taken; again, even at risk of offending them, which is a lesser evil. I believe this is St. Paul's argument, purely based on the text. In *Ecclesiasticus 25* it is a simple statement: a woman is at least an (if not the) efficient cause of sin. Which is true. It doesn't say she was the *only* one. One can cause something while not being *directly* responsible for it: e.g. giving bad example to someone who later does some serious sin. In *Wisdom 24*, the devil's role is addressed, while again not said to be the only source of death; it is his role in it that is seen as pertinent in the context. Who can deny that it's true that all three are in their own respective senses the 'cause' of sin and death? Yet these are not equal in the eyes of Scripture. Only Adam is seen in Scripture as utlimately responsible for the original sin—for reasons that may be debated. --- [![enter image description here][1]][1] Take the analogy of Mary and Jesus (who were, incidentally, compared by the Fathers to Adam and Eve): Mary 'caused' Jesus' public minstry, by asking asking Him to help out the wedding hosts with their need (lack of wine). Even though "it [was] not [His] time." *Jn 2:4*. (He was reluctant). Just as Adam would have been reluctant to eat the fruit, to the eating of which he knew a curse was attached (as St. Paul notes, he wasn't 'decieved' and knew full well what he was doing, hence the full guilt and reality of the transgression). *Jn 2:1-3*. But *Jesus* caused His public ministry ultimately, and is the One responsible for doing so. *Jn 2:5-7*. She wasn't *directly* responsible for the wedding guests' fill of wine—but was indubitably *indirectly* responsible. As is the directness, so the responsibility: Mary couldn't take credit for the wine; yet at the same time, one could rightfully thank her for that wine, because through her it came: even as through her the Messiah came into the world (hence her being blessed by anyone who talks of her in Scripture). [1]: https://i.sstatic.net/5xQgO.jpg