This starts with your point 5.1~3 then turns into
a gentle rave...
>5. what is signified by the phrase hO GAR QEOS APEIRASTOJ ESTIN
> KAKWN?
> That God is untemptable by evils?
As opposed to the Psalm 95:9 kind of PEIRAZW?
Can genitive pl KAKWN extend from cause to result?
> That God is inexperienced in Evil?
From memory Genesis 3:22 has KAKOS, wouldn't that rule
this out (in the only relevant sense of "experience")
Is this based on a use of apeirastos outside the NT?
> That God is not to be put to the test by evils (or evil
> men)?
I would like it to be this (Though wouldn't it require
a more specific negative particle + passive participle
construction and HYPO TWN KAKWN?) (correct me)
If APO in 13 is contextual to somebody's (not extant)
claim that HOI KAKOI come down from God, then it is
answered by PASA DOSIS AGAQH.. APO TOU PATROS in 17
You are right I think that James 1:13 is the first
use of PEIRAZW in the English sense of 'temptation'
but only because it is in the context of an unknown
person's claim which is incorrect. And the final use
in 13 is a subordinate clause for which I assume the
semantic field has already been fixed by KAKWN which
goes against the idea that a new meaning has arrived.
Freed from the immediate context has James really
succeeded in redefining the word? because Revelation
reverts to a purely neutral (amoral?) use of the
verb. Rather than "first" James appears to be "only"
and this in the context of someone making a specific
accusation that God is to blame for his misdeeds.
Now for the rave...
I can't help thinking we might be too influenced
by our Anglo-Saxon distinctions between tempt/test.
Apart from James 1:13 which is a unique description
of God on the receiving end of PEIRAZW could the NT
writers even make the distinction when talking about
humans? What's the difference between not leading into
temptation by giving daily bread? and testing by bread
into stones. A hungry stomach is a "test" but standing
on the pinnacle is a "tempt". Why? James seems happy to
mix PEIRASMOS and DOKIMAW in 12 as if it was all one
Perhaps the difference only exists if you consider
there is dichotomy between man's physical trials and
spiritual trials? (Maybe there would be if man lived in
a vacuum...) Sorry if that sounds like Theology it isn't
meant to be. I'm challenging the semantic Berlin Wall
between our modern concepts which don't appear to be
visible in b-greek (and probably shouldn't be so in English
either if you consider God is at work on both sides of
that wall).
I know someone's going to come back and say "cancer
is a test" (internal - dealing with ones present)
"an offer of pirate software is a tempt" (external -
dealing with the future) but is the essential
nature of either really as different as it appears??
That just tells me what the English means.
Might be some relevant stuff on this in the LXX for
Proverbs 30:9 (although I'm not claiming that's where
the reference for daily bread in the Lord's Prayer is
drawn)
I think James is making a unique point about God in
13, but when he talks about *man* cf PEIRASMOS in 2
and 12 it conforms to the normal overlap. Neither in
14 is he seeking to (re)define PEIRASMOS but rather
making comment on hEKASTOS (KAI TA IDIA EPIQUMIA).
In short (at last!) Im suggesting James' distinction is
not tempt vs. test but God-context vs. man-context
I hope I haven't re-covered ground or misread part of
postings. and I don't mind being zapped :-)
Steven