From: CWestf5155@aol.com
Date: Thu Jan 29 1998 - 15:14:32 EST
Dear Nichel,
In a message dated 98-01-29 13:49:36 EST, you write:
> >The context does make it clear that the woman was held to be primarily
> >culpable (otherwise, as many have pointed out, where is the man?).
>
> With regards to "suffering adultery", we should recall the passage from
> Leviticus in which a woman who is raped "away from the city" is raped, but
> a woman who is raped close to the city --i.e. presumably close enough that
> she could, theoretically at least, have called for help-- has committed
> adultery; and so can be punished to the same degree as her attacker.
>
> Now, I'm not arguing that such a notion is (necessarily) included in the
> semantic scope of the terms under discussion. Nonetheless, there is surely
> more to the issue than has sometimes been suggested here; or as might
> appear readily apparent to the modern reader.
>
> Nichael
I agree that there is more to the issue.
There is more to the issue as far as the context of situation is concerned,
which includes your reference from Leviticus.
There is more to the issue as far as the philology is concerned, and it seems
as if the use of the passive reflects the contemporary view that held the man
as the perpetrator and the woman as either victim or object. I'm not sure if
this is wholly alien to the modern mindset which often describes mutual sexual
activity as the man "scoring". I can think of other parallel parochial
English which would seem to lower the tone of the discussion, so I'll stop
there. Anyway, the woman's role is often viewed as consent vs. "Just say no."
In terms of the passage at hand, the context of the situation must be a
backdrop, but the transfer of the entire baggage of "woman as
victim/object/suffering" into the mouths of the scribes and Pharisees accusing
her would involve an exegetical fallacy. First, because apparently according
to the research of others on list, the passive (or middle) is always used, so
that this is "simply the way they say it." Second, because in the context,
they are holding her accountable.
I realize that you are probably not guilty of this, but it helps the precision
of the discussion.
D. A. Carson has written a good book called *Exegetical Fallacies*, and I
think that this might be an illustration "illegitimate totality transfer" (p.
62). I see this fallacy on the list from time to time--"The fallacy in this
instance lies in the supposition that the meaning of a word in a specific
context is much broader than the context itself allows and may bring with it
the word's entire semantic range."
Now, I still think that there is an irony in the passage about the use of the
passive and the absence of the man. But I doubt that it was an irony intended
by either the scribes or pharisees or even the author of this passage.
Cindy Westfall
PhD Student, Roehampton
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:00 EDT