> Jeff et al:
>
> If you don't mind, I think the meaning of PEIRAZW in James 1:13-14 can be
> established right up front, at least as to what it cannot mean.
Paul,
Why should I mind?!! You are doing exactly what I requested!
>
> There is no question that PEIRAZEIN can and often does mean "to test, to
> try." But that it does not mean that here is clear from PEIRAZEI DE
> AUTOS OUDENA. (where the 3rd person singular refers to the preceding
> QEOS), for this would be saying that God tests no one. Yet, we know from
> other scripture (Gen 22:1, Jas 1:2) that God does test His people.
> Therefore, it means something else here. But, what?
You have admirably identified the conundrum, *if* (aye, there's the rub),
*if* PEIRAZEI DE AUTOS OUDENA does indeed mean "for God himself subjects
no one to PEIRASMOS." If it does mean this, then it would seem, given what
you point out, that PEIRAZW here would have to mean something other than
"test".
The question remains, however, whether PEIRAZEI DE AUTOS OUDENA is really
to be translated as you suggest.
> You have suggested "provoke" which at least is a significant departure
> from "test," and conjures up a provoking to evil. It does not seem much
> different than "tempt to evil." Actually, the verses do support this
> idea. If in v. 13 GAR is explanatory, and DE is copulative, then both hO
> ... QEOS APEIRASTOS ESTIN KAKWN and PEIRAZEI ... AUTOS OUDENA are an
> explanatory parallel to APO QEOU PEIRAZOMAI. Even if KAKWN goes with the
> second clause, the point remains. Somehow KAKWN must be understood in the
> clause APO QEOU PEIRAZOMAI. Since it is not stated, it must be bound up
> in the meaning of PEIRAZOMAI. Hence, the meaning is "provoke or tempt to
> evil."
I'll have to mull this one over. But my first reaction is to wonder
whether part of what you argue depends on taking the APO in APO
QEOU PEIRAZOMAI as "by". It seems to me, in the light of J.V.'s
comments that this is by no means ceratin, and that we might not
have in James 1:13 the complaint we thing we do, namely, "I am
tested/tempted by God".
> Verse 14 gives the contrast. DE has to be adversative. If the provoking
> or tempting to evil does not have its source in God (APO QEOU, genitive
> of source), whence does it come? The agent or cause is our evil desires
> (hUPO THS IDIAS EPIQUMIAS).
Curiously, Dibelius/Greeven say that DE = "and".
So in the light of these questions, as well as that of whether what the
complaint in James 1:13a is about is "failing in the test" (lack of
ability to endure" and not "experincing solicitations to evil"), I
still have doubts that the traditional translation makes the best sense.
Jeffrey (which I prefer to Jeff, though Jeff has a nice casual ring to it),
jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu
>
>
> Paul Dixon
>
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 20:59:26 -0500 (CDT) Jeffrey Gibson
> <jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu> writes:
> >
> >List Members:
> >
> >
> >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
> >