Oidipous’s calling “worthless” the prophecies demanding his participation in his father’s death will prompt the audience to counter from the god’s perspective; these prophecies were made necessary when Laios ignored the prophecies he had received. The audience can understand now that when the god told Oidipous that he would be his father’s killer, he was speaking of a necessity to which both the god and Oidipous were already subject. [Dn] That Oidipous regarded the prophecy as optional expanded the god’s task; just as Laios’ killing at Oidipous’s hands was necessary to the god if he was to maintain his divinity, Oidipous’s being made to murder his father and marry his mother became necessities as soon as Oidipous resisted doing so. This seems to present a paradox; Oidipous would have to kill Laios and marry Iokaste whether he cooperated or not. Was there any point, then, in simply submitting to the god? Certainly, had Laios submitted Oidipous would never have been born; Laios could not have died by his hand. With Oidipous’s birth came the necessity that he kill Laios. His decision was not, whether or not to kill his father, but whether to do it willingly or unwillingly. He must consider then, the implications of this distinction. This is a question that Oidipous has apparently never raised. Has the Athenian audience? [Md]