Mediaeval Latin scholars twisted Quran 2.223 to allege sanctioned perversion

Evidence

This was universally considered in the Middle Ages to have the meaning alleged by Peter of Poitiers and quoted above in chapter V. Sale, however, says that it refers to postures and gives his authorities for so saying; they comment that ‘preposterous venery’ is forbidden by the preceding verse, by the words, ‘as God has commanded you’; it is interesting that this is just what Bibliander understood, commenting marginally on the words following ‘parate’, that is, ‘Deum timentes’, to this effect: Violentius hic locus a nostris tortus est quast nefaria permittat, quum adjiciat, Deum timentes, etc. Maracci in his notes cites Jalal ad-Din’s commentary which supports Sale’s opinion, but in his refutatio, while realising that there is a doubt, prefers the ‘Christian’ view, and quotes San Pedro. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1810

Categorization

• DEFINE: Shows how a partial misreading (‘preposterous venery’) of one verse became the universal medieval Christian ‘proof’ of Islamic licentiousness despite better-informed commentators knowing better.
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: how did individual scholars like Bibliander and Maracci privately recognize the misreading yet still defer to the polemical consensus?