RE: MOICHEUOMENH

From: Andrew Kulikovsky (anku@celsiustech.com.au)
Date: Mon Jan 26 1998 - 19:20:32 EST


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Cox [SMTP:scox@ns1.chinaonline.com.cn.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 10:26 AM
> To: Carl W. Conrad
> Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
> Subject: Re: MOICHEUOMENH
>
> There's also something fishy about "caught in the act"
> Yes? So where was the man?! I takes two doesn't it? I can
> only think that either they let the man get away (as he
> had friends in high places?). Or the author chooses to
> remove the man from the story to reinforce an adultery
> symbology drawn from OT accounts where "adultery" was
> committed with gods that "had mouths but could not speak".
> Hence the symbolic significance of no man being available
> to be stoned.
>
        [Andrew]
        I believe the Law actually stated that a couple caught in the
act were to be summararily killed by having a lance rammed through them
while they were still in the act...

        cheers,
        Andrew



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:00 EDT