Maybe you're right that there are biblical scholars that would not agree with their interpretation (if they'd even considered it before.) I don't do enough biblical scholarship. But...
1) ... the people in question are in the habit of interpreting texts, and are often trained in it. And the bible is just another text.
2) ... that is definitely not the audience that Donahue was saying had considered and rejected their interpretation (in fact, classically in Catholicism, it isn't really your job to interpret the bible. It is your job to shut up and take the interpretation you are given, so to speak.) I buy your interpretation, but at best (IE: he is using it) it just points out that he's being disingenuous again by purporting that it's 'reasoned' disagreement by the masses', when really it's just 'the mindless masses don't think it's sexist.'
I think she can defend it (frankly, if I could, and she couldn't, it would be a strange world), but she isn't getting the _chance_ to defend it. 'You're a bigot' being screamed at the top of someone's lungs is not _defensible_. And I would argue that one could not, similarly, turn that standard around in all other areas of expertise. Nobody's expected to act like things that aren't written to a general audience are written to a general audience. Well, unless they work in the humanities. Everyone thinks they're an expert on the humanities.
no subject
1) ... the people in question are in the habit of interpreting texts, and are often trained in it. And the bible is just another text.
2) ... that is definitely not the audience that Donahue was saying had considered and rejected their interpretation (in fact, classically in Catholicism, it isn't really your job to interpret the bible. It is your job to shut up and take the interpretation you are given, so to speak.) I buy your interpretation, but at best (IE: he is using it) it just points out that he's being disingenuous again by purporting that it's 'reasoned' disagreement by the masses', when really it's just 'the mindless masses don't think it's sexist.'
I think she can defend it (frankly, if I could, and she couldn't, it would be a strange world), but she isn't getting the _chance_ to defend it. 'You're a bigot' being screamed at the top of someone's lungs is not _defensible_. And I would argue that one could not, similarly, turn that standard around in all other areas of expertise. Nobody's expected to act like things that aren't written to a general audience are written to a general audience. Well, unless they work in the humanities. Everyone thinks they're an expert on the humanities.
(And thank something for that.)
-Mecha