Literacy and the high cost of hand copying the Old and New Testament put an economic and ceremonial scarcity on Holy Books. As dear (expensive; beloved) elements of spiritual practice they were sometimes enshrined, chained or otherwise secured, encrusted in gold and precious stones and so on. And to hear the words spoken was like a faint whisper of God's voice, no matter if pronounced in the vernacular, in the Latin of Imperial Rome, or before that in Hebrew (OT) and Greek plus Aramaic (NT). But when printing and distribution fully develops and literacy speads along with it, access to The Word is less a logistical problem and more of an attention problem since many other printed works are in circulation, as well, and seekers face multiple translations, commentators and experts. In this sense the road of discourse and relationships across and between societies is wider and wider but all the while The Way is as narrow as it was at the time of Rabbi Jesus.

    At the organizational level, too, the primitive church was a small-scale and organizationally flat structure. But as property and edification accumulated one generation after another, the hierarchies and specializations of knowledge and spiritual practices multiplied until one person could not easily feel acquainted with the body of knowledge that has been expanding.

    One big change in the control of access to Holy Words (scripture) and relationships with God was the Reformation by the Protestants and with them the Anabaptists, ultimately with the extreme accountability on the cellular individual that Quakerism expresses as "that of God within each person." Thereby the circle is completed: from the egalitarian Primitive Churches to the layers of hierarchy to administer a giant body of believers and back to the flat structure with each person in relationship to God and to one's neighbors. By shifting the channel of communication away from Mass and the celebrant official, and instead privileging the Words of God (in one's own vernacular, continually being revised in light of growing scholarly understanding) there is meant to be direct access of the person with God and with one another. Any yet The Way remains as narrow as it was in the time of Rabbi Jesus.

Depending on whether you ask Jew, Christian or Muslim, the place where the sacred resides of the holy teachings could be perceived to be in the physical substance with which the human words are carved, scriven or printed; or it could be in the utterances of those human words; or it could be the exact words at the time they were received (ancient Hebrew for Moses; 7th century peninsular Arabdic for The Prophet Mohammad); or it could be the gist of the meaning communicated, no matter the translation (vernacular, Latin, or source texts: Greek & Aramaic NT and Hebrew OT among Christians, for instance).

    And yet, taking Rabbi Jesus as an example, how important would literacy (the written, representational word) be regarded when seeking himself as a Jew of the Fulfilled Law. Would he say that the importance of bringing God's children closer to one another and into living relationship with God the creator lies in written texts, in oral tradition and the teaching stories (parables) and conversations that God's people enter into? Or would he attach special importance to the physical source texts and their material existence? Would the human language in which the relationships are formed with God and with one's neighbor be significant in communicating the full resonance, overtones and undertones, and holiness? Or would these details and the tradition of Kabala (interchanging numbers and letters to discover patterns and relationships) be something that Rabbi Jesus would honor? In sum, WWJS: What (languages) Would Jesus Speak (today)?

Many languages other than English have separate words to 'know a fact' (example, saber in Spanish) and to 'know a person' (example, conocer in Spanish). Educators understand that learning and teaching is a social experience; not a simple transfer of knowledge from master to pupil. As a result, without some care in this regard and laying the groundwork of trust and rapport, a heated or controverisal subject can fall into personal afront or resentment. In other words, the people engaged on different sides of a subject can take the criticisms personally; relationally; disrespectfully.

Grace (undeserved & godly) versus Mercy (undeserved and granted by Allah)

Word roots sometimes give a clue to underlying foundation or undercurrents. The Merriam-Webster dictionary says that GRACE comes from gratia for pleasing, grateful (akin to sigh), while MERCY comes from cost paid or wages (maybe in the sense of being treated or being paid for by someone else). Interestingly the unspeakable name among the Creator God's names that is rendered in condensed form YHVH is supposed to carry the root for a Quality of Grace and Mercy together. Since there is some intersection in the terms, how can they be distinguished or accurately related to each other? Perhaps one is more about the spiritual (pertaining to "Love Your God") and the other is more about the ethical (pertaining to "Love Your Neighbor as Yourself"). In other words, GRACE is between you and God, while MERCY can touch matters of God, but also matters of human justice. (pleas for the one in power to display mercy to the condemned or compromised).

A good deal of Christianity seems to revolve around the idea of God is (agape) love, while Judaism seems fixated on God is holiness, and Islam sees God in terms mainly of The Merciful (in a position of judgement and holding all power). Seeing both words, grace and mercy, through the lens of each of these Abrahamic traditions could be a good way to finely define the terms.