From: Jeffrey Gibson (jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu)
Date: Tue Jul 01 1997 - 00:14:41 EDT
Some responses to responses to my last, long posting on Matt
6:13//Lk. 11:4.
First of all, thanks so much to the many B-Greekers who have
publicly or privately written to me about my post. It has been very
gratifying to know that what I had to say has been well received.
The responses caused me to go back and look at both what I said as well as
how I said it. And on this latter point, I was appalled to find some
extremely egreigous typos in sections 1 and 2. Not only did I use "their"
for "there" in my sentence which read "their (sic) is little or nothing
of the idea of "enticement" attached to them" (curiously, the *reverse* of
what usually occurs) and "it's" for "its" in the phrase "It's Hebrew
cognate...", but in the sentence in which I speak of the tendency to
impute the modern idea of "temptation" into the word PEIRASMOS I wrote
"... is being enticed, seduced, and is closed to sin" when what I mean to
say was "CLOSE to sin." Section 1(b) also has some places devoid of
subject/verb agreement, and there are a more than a few instances of
misspellings and dittography to be found sprinkled about the text. That's
what you get when you write on little sleep and very close to midnight.
I hope all who read the post did his or her own textual criticism
on these bits.
Second, in reply to Paul Dixon who, on Mon, 30 Jun 1997, wrote:
> If Jeff Gibson is right that the overwhelming evidence for the meaning
> of PEIRASMOS is "a trial which puts (someone of something) to the
> proof ... a test or trial of faithfulness," and if we are told in James
> that
> we should count it all joy when we encounter various PEIRASMOIS,
> "knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance ... in order
> that you may be perfect and complete" (1:2-3), then does it not seem
> strange that we should pray that God would not lead us into such
> testings? Certainly, they are for our good.
>
> Is this, coupled with the fact that the verbal form does consistently
> mean "tempt" (Mt 4:1, Js 1:13-14, for starters), explain why translations
> have traditionally rendered it "temptation"?
>
> On the other hand, might Christ's prayer in the Garden, "let this cup
> pass from Me; nevertheless, not My will, but Thine be done" parallel
> and support Gibson's thesis?
the following needs to be said:
1. It is precisely because "it seem[s] strange that we should pray
that God would not lead us into such testings" that the view of the
petition as envisaging the testing of believers (either now or in
some "final/eschatological PEIRASMOS" is so questionable. They
would then be asking "Deny us the privilege of being found faithful
in PEIRASMOS; dispenses us from fulfilling God's will in such a
test". Note, too, that should PEIRASMOS bear the sense that
"temptation" nowadays connotes, namely, "incitement to do what is
known to be wrong, an inner inclination to wrongdoing with the
prospect of pleasure or advantage", then it is even more difficult
to think that it is believers experiencing PEIRASMOS that is in
view in the petition. For the petition then has in mind the
possibility of God intending to lead or even deliberately leading
his own into situations where they will be enticed to do what they
know is wrong.
2. It is simply not the case that the verbal form of PEIRASMOS,
i.e., PEIRAZW or EKPEIRAZW means "tempt" in the sense of "attract,
allure, entice, dispose, incline." As with PEIRASMOS, I've done
the spadework here of investigating all of the instances contained
in the TLG D disk of the use of the these verbs from Homer to the
end of the 2nd century C.E. - the results of which, as with my
investigation of PEIRASMOS, I will share with the list, if there
are requests that I do (though the posting would be about five
times as long as my previous one on PEIRASMOS). And despite what
both LSJ and BAGD say with respect to Matt 4:1//Lk 4.2 (the
PEIRAZWMENOS here is modeled after the PEIRASMOS Israel was
subjected to by God during the wilderness wanderings), and save for
one possible instance in the Greek Anthology, or when the verbs are
used with a verbal object (cf. Polybius, The Histories 2.6.9,
8.4.7, 30.23.2, Fragments 195, Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica
1.495, Ps. Apollodorus, The Library 3.14.6, Dionysius
Halicarnassensis, Antiquitates Romanae. 10.1.5, Lucian, De mercede
conductis potentium familiaribus 39.13, Soranus, Gynaeciorum libri
iv 2.43.1.1, Vettius Valens, Anthologiarum 1.39; Deut. 4:34;
Aquila, Deut. 28:56; Acts 9:26: 16:7; 26:4, Ignatius, Magnesians
7.1; Clementine Homily 16:13.4, and Clement of Alexandria, Stromata
4.12.85.1-2.), and then mean "to try" in the sense of "to try to do
something", "to attempt", PEIRAZW and EKPEIRAZW *always* mean "to
put to the test", "to prove".
3. The reason that translations have rendered PEIRASMOS
"temptation" is *not*, as *seems* to be implied by your question,
that the Greek noun really bore connotations now associated with
the English term, but that our English equivalent ultimately
derives from the Latin term used as the equivalent of PEIRASMOS,
namely, _tempt- tentationem_. And in this connection, it is very
important to note that for a large part of the history of its
usage, the English term "temptation" did not mean "temptation" as
it is now understood. It meant "a proof", a "test" (Check out the
OED on this). So when, say, Tyndale or Wycliffe, let alone the KJV,
has "lead us not into temptation", what is mean by "temptation" is
what I have claimed is meant by PEIRASMOS. And until recently,
translators have not wanted to change the familiar wording of so
familiar a prayer, despite the fact that they knew they were no
longer conveying accurately the sense of the term. Witness the
changes in the JB, GNB, REB, etc.
As to postings by Robert Petry, Mark Goodacre, and Peter Phillips ....
I have something to say to each of them, But it's late again, and I'm
very tired. If the list will indulge me once more, I will hold off
replying to them until tomorrow.
In the meantime, I'd like to give thanks for having such a forum as
B-Greek in which this topic can be discussed.
Let me know if there is interest in seeing my lexical study on PEIRAZW
and EKPEIRAZW.
Jeffrey Gibson
jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:21 EDT