From: Jeffrey B. Gibson (jgibson000@home.com)
Date: Mon Jan 29 2001 - 22:53:18 EST
Tony Costa wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> There has been much thought over James 1:13 on this list and the usage
> of PEIRAZW. Has anyone given much thought to Gen 22:1 (LXX) where it says hO
> QEOS EPEIRASE TON ABRAAM. Does this appear contradictory to what James
> writes in his letter? James tells us God does not tempt anyone, but the
> Genesis text seems to say the opposite. Most translations give us "God
> tested Abraham" (NIV, JB, RSV, Moffat, Goodspeed) whereas AV has "God did
> tempt Abraham".
Not only seems, but **does** say the opposite if, quite contrary to contemporary
usage, James uses PEIRAZW with the sense of "entice to sin".
> IMHO, I think James 1:14 qualifies verse 13 by stating that
> the temptation James is talking about is one which comes from WITHIN, the
> evil desire, and which entices people away from God and into evil. The
> testing (or temptation?) that comes from WITHOUT, ie. from the Deity, is
> considered beneficial and spiritually edifying. Any thoughts? Many thanks.
The difficulty is that, leaving James 1:13 aside, there is not a single instance in
Greek literature where the phenomenon denoted by PEIRASMOS or the activity denoted by
PEIRAZW and EKPEIRAZO is thought of as a psychological event, as something which
arises from within a person and prompts them to act in ways which would be considered
"sinful". So far as I can tell, that which is denoted by these terms is always
thought of as something results from an objective encounter with someone or something
outside of the one being "put to the test".
Additionally, I wonder if categories like "spiritually edifying" are anachronistic and
reflect a view of the aim or ends of particular experiences that is more
characteristic of Western pietism and Augustinian dualism than it is of the way that
James or others in the first century Mediterranean world thought, so that assuming
that there are "testings" which can be or are so skews from the start one's
understanding of the semantic range of -- or the nature of the phenomena denoted by
-- PEIRAZW, PEIRASMOS, and EKPEIRAZW?
Would it not be best to translate PEIRAZW in vs. 13 as "provoke". This after all has
the advantage of being grounded in the imagery of PEIRASMOS derived from Ex. 17.
In any case, to answer your questions, you'll want to have a look at the seminal study
on the Biblical usage of PEIRASMOS and cognates done by J.H. Korn entitled
_PEIRASMOS: Die Versuchung des Glaubigen in der greischischen Bible_ (Stuttgart: W.
Kohlhammer, 1937)
Yours,
Jeffrey Gibson
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@home.com
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:49 EDT