Kant admits that his philosophical interpretation of the fall is not “intended for Scriptural exegesis, which lies outside the boundaries of the competence of mere reason.” Putting the “historical account” to “moral use” leaves the issue of the writer’s intention, the text’s meaning, historicity to the side.
But perhaps the moral and philosophical use of the narrative is precisely in its historicity - the fact that the fall occurred in time, and was a fall from an original innocence.
How can Kant know otherwise? Only because his interpretation according to “mere reason” and for “moral use” excludes time and history from the outset. He already knows - somehow - that “historical cognition . . . has no intrinsic relation” to moral progress.
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from Biblical Studies
Continue reading related articles
The Bible and the Middle East
Does Bible study matter - I mean, in the real world? Who cares what anyone thinks of Adam or Abraham, whether you're pre-, a-, or post-mil, when missiles are flying from Israel to Iran and back? Yes, Bible study matters, especially in the midst of today's war in the Middle…
Enemies into Friends
This essay was first published at FirstThings.com in September 2019. Given recent debate about justice, friends, and enemies, it seemed useful to repost it here. A third of the way through the Book of Acts, a man named Saul takes over the narrative. Like Israel’s King Saul, this Saul is…
The Bible in the Ancient East
Jeffrey J. Niehaus’s Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology is a superb introduction to the subject. In a brief 180 pages, he examines the parallels between Israel and the surrounding Gentiles in their conceptions of God and kinship; their notions of covenant, law and conquest; their views on the…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.