Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: Temptations

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT mailhost.chi.ameritech.net>
  • To: Kata Markon <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Temptations
  • Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 13:04:49 -0500


Mike Parsons wrote:

> Reply to: RE: [gmark] Re: Temptations
>
> I will take up your points in reverse order
> you wrote: 2) . . . what you took to be instances of PEIRAZW were really
> instances of PEIRAW, a >verb whose semantic range I have only cursorily
> investigated.
>
> I was (and am) fully aware that the instances I cited were cases of PEIRAW
> and not PEIRAZW. I am also aware that Seeseman does include PEIRAW in his
> TDNT discussion and suggests it has among other things the meaning of "put
> to the test". My question is whether or not in your study (which i have not
> read either in article or book form) you included instances of PEIRAW. If
> you did, why do you not take into account these passages from Xenophon (and
> perhaps other novels where testing in the sense of testing character is a
> main theme)? If you did not, why not?

No, I did not, though it would have been in my interest to do so. As to why I
didn't, there were two factors. Time (there are about -- at a rough estimate
-- three times as many extant instances of forms of PEIRA and PEIRAW than of
PEIRASMOS, PEIRAZW, and EKPEIRAZW) and the fact that my intent was to
investigate only the terminology used in the Gospels re the "testing" of
Jesus. PEIRA and PEIRAW are not so used.

> (1) to ask >whether, as George Young had seem to imply, there are really
> any instances in the >Novels of the use of (EK)PEIAZW [sic] and PEIRASMOS
>
> actually in your earlier post you wrote > > > noun PEIRASMOS and its verbal
> cognates PEIRAZW, EKPEIRAZW, etc., (my emphasis)
> In your new quote you (conveniently?) left out the "etc." I was asking
> whether or not PEIRAW/PEIRAOMIA should be included as one of the "etc."

I see the source of the confusion. I did not mean to use the "etc." in the
first quote.

If it's of any interest, I do intend some day to do a study of all of the
instances of PEIRAW in lit. dating from 8 BCE to 2 CE -- I even have a print
out of this data (including the data on the not yet released TLG E disk)
which I had the folks at TLG run off for me in anticipation of engaging in
this project. Would you -- or anyone on the list -- be interested and/or
willing to be a co-author?

Yours,

Jeffrey
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000 AT ameritech.net






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page