[B-Greek] Jam 1:13 APEIRASTOS 'unable to' or 'unable to be ~'
iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Jul 5 14:31:42 EDT 2007
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 at comcast.net>
>> The other problem is the various senses of PEIRAZW. Apart from the sense
>> "attempt to do (unsuccesfully)" it can mean "test, examine" in a positive
>> or "tempt to do bad things" in a negative sense.
> Could you please provide me with some examples in Hellenistic literature apart
> those in the "temptation" story of Matt 4:1-11//Lk 4.1-13 where PEIRAZW is
> used with
> the sense of "incite" "entice" "seduce", let alone to try to get someone to do
I don't have the resources to search non biblical Greek, so I was relying on
BAGD which says for PEIRAZW: "2d. in a bad sense also of enticement to sin."
L&N says: "88.308 PEIRAZW: to endeavor or attempt to cause someone to sin - ‘to
tempt, to trap, to lead into temptation".
If your have a quarrel with the standard dictionaries, I think it is upon you to
prove that they are wrong.
I am not aware that this sense is found in the OT, and I didn't speak to the OT.
>> Which sense is intended can
>> only be determined in context. The two important determiners are (1) the
>> and (2) the result.
>> Testing has a positive motive by the tester, because the hope is that
>> or whoever is being tested will be stregthened after having undergone the
> Really? Is there any hint of this is the stories of God testing Abraham or
> Aren't you confusing PEIRAZW with DOKIMAZW?
No, I am not, although your are right that there is some semantic overlap
between the positive sense of PEIRAZW and DOKIMAZW.
>> This positive motive expects a positive result. It or they will
>> have been tested and then receive a stamp of approval. That is why James 1:2
>> says that it is a joy to be tested. It produces endurance, which is a
>> character trait. That is also why God can test people or at least allow
>> to happen.
>> On the other hand, temptation has a negative motive, because the hope is that
>> the one being tempted will fall for the temptation and do somethng bad. In
>> sense the Devil is the "Tempter".
> Can you please provide me with the evidence upon which the claim being made
> here --
> that in the "temptation in the wilderness" story, the Devil approaches Jesus
> with an
> ill intent and a particular hope -- is based?
> Frankly I don't see anything in the story that indicates this. The idea that
> Devil is hostile to Jesus here and that he is actively trying to entice
> Jesus and
> to **get** Jesus to do something bad, let alone to "fall", seems to me to be
> idea that is brought to and read into the text, and is done so because of
> certain a
> priori assumptions about who the Devil is and what he is up to, and by
> into Wilderness temptation story the themes and atmosphere of conflict that
> such stories of Jesus in "temptation" as we find in Mk. 8:11-13 and Mk.
> where it is clear, given both the form and wording of those stories, that
> those who
> "tempt" Jesus do so with hostile intent. But it is notable that nothing of
> what the
> evangelists use in those stories - including the form employed in the
> recounting of
> them -- to signal or state that Jesus' "tempters" approach him with bad
> intent can
> be found anywhere in any version of the Wilderness "temptation" story.
> So how do you justify your claim?
Yes, you are correct in assuming that I expect the Devil to be hostile to Jesus
with bad intent. You are entitled to have different assumptions about the Devil.
More information about the B-Greek