Taking EPIQUMIA as a personified power is what H. Schonweiss argues for in
his article on the term in in NIDNTT 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975),
pp. 456-458, esp. 458). And to do so would lead us to the conclusion that
in portraying the phemomenon of PEIRASMOS James is wholly in line with
what is said on this matter by virtually every one else in both the
biblical and "secular" world who speaks of, or narrates stories about,
human beings (and even gods) under PEIRASMOS (even by "Paul" in 1 Tim. 6:9
-- see below), namely, that it is NOT a psychological event grounded in an
enticing thought or desire that arises from within the one subject to
PEIRASMOS; but, a concrete, objective experience arising in an encounter
of the one "tempted" with some reality outside of himself.
But I think, even absent this idea of EPIQUMIA, the conclusion is
still valid, for a strong case can be made for seeing that in James
EPIQUMIA (and in 1 Tim. 6:9 the BOULOMENOI PLOUTEIN from which
PEIRASMOS is said to spring [hOI DE BOULOMENOI PLOUTEIN EMPIPTOUSIN
EIS PEIRASMON KAI PAGIDA KAI EPIQUMIAS POLLAS ANOHTOUS KAI
BLABERAS, hAITINES BUQIZOUSIN TOUS ANQRWPOUS EIS OLEQRON KAI
APWLEIAN]) are actually portrayed as that THROUGH WHICH the forces
of Evil attack man, and are therefore the channel rather than the
source or instigator of PEIRASMOS.
Note how this lines up with Rabbinic perceptions of the link
between the yeser ha-ra`, the celebrated "evil impulse" which God
implanted in men's hearts, and "testing". The yeser is thought of
not as an inner enticement but as the weak spot in man which may
lead him *once subject to PEIRASMOS* to fail his "test". And as
Baba Batra 16a and Sifra, Ahare Perek 13 note in their respective
identifications of the evil impulse with Satan, the yeser is an
objective force, distinct from the man upon whom it operates.
Just some more thoughts to mull over.
Jeffrey
jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu