The authors of the pre-Christian era say nothing about the original sin in this sense, of which for example Paul says in his epistles. They do not think that man is born sinner, the only chance which - the Savior, without help of Whom we shall not free ourselves from the original sin.
But they also recognize that everything is well with man, besides not only as regards to the concrete sins which he committed, but also as regards to his nature, as such. The tendency of man ("by flesh and blood") for evil was too obvious, that this could not be noticed. Certainly, the tendency for sin in itself was not imputed to sin, but it was looked cautiously, what is not surprising.
Besides, its presence must have engendered pessimism known in what concerned the public life and the general course of historical events. Indeed, if righteousness is possible in such a situation, then only as an exception, and exceptions as known only prove the rule. The general rule says that in the life of humanity, the measure of evil will always exceed the measure of good, exactly because righteous men by definition are in minority.
It is not surprising that the author of the book arrives at the conclusion of the non-intervention of God in earthly affairs: at such situation one could probably assume that God only proposes to us the Torah, the commandments, the path of righteousness, but insists on nothing, leaving everything for our free choice.
And since the choice of the majority is made on the benefit of evil, God just moves away from people and goes where nobody will say “no” to Him. A dark glance, but unfortunately, quite realistic. Only the coming of the Messiah could change the situation radically, but it still remains to it, apparently, not less than a century.
