A word weighs a ton
- •
I feel like people forget what words weigh once the book is holy.
- •
They encounter something disturbing and immediately look for someone who can explain why it means something else. Before the explanation even arrives, the desired ending is already there. The book has to survive untouched.
- •
I understand that language needs context. Translation matters. There are genuine disagreements about what texts mean. But an explanation should have to earn its conclusion. I want to know whether the words support it, including the parts that make people uncomfortable.
- •
There are actual texts to discuss. Sahih al-Bukhari 5134 reports that Aisha was six at marriage and nine at consummation. Leviticus 25:44–46 permits acquiring enslaved people from surrounding nations and passing them on as inherited property. These are claims about what the texts contain, before we get to arguments about their history or authority. Bukhari 5134, Leviticus 25:44–46
- •
My objection is to putting those texts on a moral pedestal.
- •
“That was normal then” might help explain a historical practice. I still need an explanation for why the account belongs in something I am supposed to regard as morally perfect. Calling the guidance timeless makes that question harder.
- •
Every book ages. An old book can contain something thoughtful and something horrible. I can keep a useful idea without taking on an obligation to defend the whole book.
- •
What frustrates me about some reinterpretations is that the person already seems to know which parts need fixing. They recognize the problem well enough to work around it, then credit the text for the humane conclusion they had to work to extract.
- •
At what point can we just say the book got something wrong?
- •
I would rather have that admission than another explanation whose ending was decided before anyone read the sentence.