Where the evidence ends in an argument about moral language

Where the evidence ends in an argument about moral language

A plausible explanation is not the same as evidence that a text supports it. In “Would a Perfect Teacher Give Humanity a Better Moral Language?”, I ask whether a perfect teacher could have offered greater clarity in the Torah, given concepts its ancient audience already had.

Maimonides’ accommodation theory and the idea of a moral trajectory both have merit. But I don’t think the text consistently supports either as proof that morally incomplete laws were part of a divine teaching plan. That distinction matters when presenting an interpretation: readers should be able to see where the evidence ends and the explanation begins.