[B-Greek] Jam 1:13 APEIRASTOS 'unable to' or 'unable to be ~'
kwonbbl at gmail.com
Thu Jul 5 16:17:05 EDT 2007
On 7/5/07, Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Oun Kwon" <kwonbbl at gmail.com>
> To: "greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:05 AM
> Subject: [B-Greek] Jam 1:13 APEIRASTOS 'unable to' or 'unable to be ~'
> > Jam 1:13
> > MHDEIS PEIRAZOMENOS LEGETW hOTI
> > <APO QEOU PEIRAZOMAI>:
> > hO GAR QEOS APEIRASTOS ESTIN KAKWN,
> > PEIRAZEI DE AUTOS OUDENA
> > APEIRASTOS occurs in N.T only once here. Why it should be understood
> > as God 'being unable to be tempted/tested' (a passive voice)? With
> > this rendering (strange concept to me) as in all the translations I
> > know of, this makes the whole verse difficult to understand.
> > Commentaries do not help for clear exegesis on this verse.
> One problem is how to understand the genitive KAKWN. If APEIRASTOS is used in a
> passive sense, which I agree is demanded by the context, is KAKWN then the
> implied agent for such temptation? It would be easy to come to such a conclusion
> from the many English versions that translate the genitive by the word "by" as
> if the text had said hUPO KAKWN. NCV says: "Evil cannot tempt God." BAGD and
> BDAG take the genitive as the complement and translates "to do evil". This is
> clearly and correctly translated by NLT which says: "God is never tempted to do
> The other problem is ...
If we take NLT rendering as a correct one (others do not make a sense
at all), how this statement can be logically connected with the
preceding clause, which demands a supporting statement. 'Don't say 'I
am tempted by God'. The reason should 'God does not tempt'; not 'God
is not tempted'.
If APERISTOS is taken in a passive meaning as you and most do, it does
violate the plain logic of the sentence in v. 13.
More information about the B-Greek