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.