From: Steven Cox (scox@chinaonline.com.cn.net)
Date: Mon Jan 26 1998 - 18:56:06 EST
Hello Carl
At 14:16 98/01/26 -0600, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>passive. And I really can't see that this story bears any particular
>relationship to the Jesus-saying about adultery. Most people seem to think
>that it must be an authentic Jesus tradition although it seems very strange
>in its context in John's gospel
I agree, but I suspect it is placed there (after the
attempted stoning of Jesus 7:31, and the Nicodemus defence
against condemning without hearing 7:51, and before the
pharisee's human judgement 8:15) as a piece of symbology.
This doesn't mean the incident didn't actually happen,
just that it fits the author's purpose and intent here
(7:31-8:15) and I would therefore read MOICHEUOMENH with
a stong wink at the LXX prophets on Israel, and the
entire passage with underlying symbology.
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.
None of this means the obvious meaning isn't true, but I'm
just politely differing that it's out of place in the Israel
related context.
On the textual issue I read somewhere that it was excluded
for social decency in some early calendary readings, and
that this explains the absence in some MSS. Not that I'm
really into MSS and variants! :-)
Steven
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:00 EDT