As the discussion on James 1:13 continues, I would like comments on,
refinements of, additions to, what I think are the questions that need to
be resolved if we are to understand what this verse is saying.
It may be in the end that the traditional translation of the verse is
correct, and that what we have in James 1:13 is the very first use of
PEIRAZW with the sense of "tempt" not "test". Though just yet, if we do
have semantic change here, I would accept more readily another suggestion,
namely, that PEIRAZW = "provoke" [Let no man say when he is provoked (to
do evil? put God to the test?), "It is God who provokes me, for God is not
to be Provoked with (such) evil things and God (moreover) does not Provoke
anyone] than "tempt.
In any case, here is what I see needs to be determined:
To intepret James 1:13, several questions need to be resolved:
1. What is the relationship between James 1:13 and its context?
Is James 1:13 linked with what comes before it and what
follows after it, and if so, in what way?
Or is James 1:13 a fresh thought, at least, as
Dibelius/Greeven claim, with respect to James 1:12,
since, in their view, James 1:12 "is an isolated saying
which is connected neither to what follows nor what
precedes"?
2. what is the nature of the GAR clause in James 1:13. If
explanatory, what does it explain?
3. what is the nature of the DE clause in James 1:13? -- a question
which itself is dependent on knowing:
4. what sense does DE bear in that clause (adversative?
copulative)?
5. what is signified by the phrase hO GAR QEOS APEIRASTOJ ESTIN
KAKWN?
That God is untemptable by evils?
That God is inexperienced in Evil?
That God is not to be put to the test by evils (or evil
men)?
6. What experience is presumed to have befallen the man who cries
out APO QEOU PEIRAZOMAI and causes or motivates him to do so?
Is it that of being "seduced to sin"?
Is it failing a test of faithfulness?
7. What is the significance of APO in the phrase APO QEOU
PEIRAZOMAI?
Jeffrey Gibson
jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu