Kata Markon

["L. J. Swain" <larry.swain AT wmich.edu>]

Sid Martin wrote:
> 
> Forgive me for being a little confused but doesn't "temptation" simply mean
> "testing" or "trying" in a moral sense?  A person's character is "tested" or
> "tried" when one is faced with a choice between what is morally right and
> what is personally appealing.  One is "tempted" to do what is easier or more
> profitable or more sensually satisfying.  One passes the "test" or "trial"
> when one refuses to give into "temptation," i.e., to fail the test by
> choosing the lesser good or the greater evil.  Without the "temptation"
> there is no "test" so that in reality they are the same thing.  Just as ore
> may be assayed to see if it has the chemical composition of gold, so too a
> person may be tested by temptation to see if he has the "right stuff."  One
> can also be tempted in a prudential sense by choosing immediate
> gratification over a person's greater interests; breaking one's diet is a
> good example.
> 
No Sid, it doesn't.  Tempt may mean test, but its semantic field in
English is much larger, and is governed by the idea of "enticement". 
This is a semantic change from the Middle English and Early Modern
English when the word "tempt" still retained its Latin meaning, to feel,
attempt, test, try, attack.  At the same time, try substituting "test"
for every instance of "tempt" in the above paragraph....it doesn't quite
work.  For example, "one passes the 'test' or 'trial' when one refuses
to give into 'testing'.  

> In the context of Mark 14:38, the sense is clearly that the disciples are to
> watch and pray and not give in to the temptation to sleep - the easier, more
> satsfying course of conduct - rather than pass the fatigue test and stay
> awake.  Note God's Word, "Stay awake, and pray that you won't be tempted."
> Many a soldier ordered to stand guard late at night has known what it is to
> say that the soldier's spirit is willing to do his duty but the long day's
> march has made his exhausted flesh too weak to watch.  Indeed, Mark is very
> likely alluding to this military model.  Falling asleep at one's post would,
> I am sure, be an instant death sentence in the Roman army.

But again, this doesn't work.  a) look at Jeffrey's first section of the
paper in which he shows how in the LXX the phrase we translate "do not
enter into testing" means there "do not become a testor" of someone
else, NOT "do not be tested".  To get this sense out of the verse you'll
need to demonstrate linguistically and semantically that Jeffrey is
incorrect in adducing those other instances, or that he has missed
others, or he has overlooked others disproving his point in other Greek
literature.  Short of that, then, his point is well taken.  Thus, the
caveat is NOT "resist temptation" but rather "do not test someone else"
and Jeffrey seeks to answer who that someone else is.

BTW, the translation you offer above: Note God's Word, "Stay awake, and
pray that you won't be tempted." is incorrect and assumes a conclusion
in the translation.  Literally it says: "Watch and pray so that you not
enter into a test" (and as Jeffrey has shown again, a test of someone
else).


> Perhaps it would be helpful if Jeffrey would share with us his concern that
> PEIRASMOS be rendered "trial" or "test" rather than "temptation" which, to
> my mind, is at best a distinction without a difference, especially where the
> context suggests that the test or trral of one of moral character, i.e.,
> temptation.  Jeffrey rests his case on the LXX  **nisah** = a "test", a
> "trial."  Brown-Driver-Briggs (based on Gesenius) has as the third
> definition "test, try prove, tempt [but not in modern sense of the word]."
> Does anyone know what the "modern sense of the word" is, other than a test
> of character?

Think of it this way:  "May I test you with some chocolate cake" has
meaning if there are dietary restrictions or allegeries to be concerned
about.  But if thrown out at a casual dinner party, the verb "test" here
is odd and jarring.  In this context though, "May I tempt you with some
chocolate cake" has an entirely different connotation to it meaning to
entice, to offer an allurement.  So in certain contexts there will be
some overlap between "tempt"and "test" but not necessarily, and so
"test" is a better translation for PEIRASMOS than temptation.  (To be
more precise as well, Jeffrey rests his case on teh LXX use of PEIRASMOS
in connection with the verb ERXOMAI, not the Hebrew "nisah").

 
> If Joe is mistaken in his translation, it is a mistake that the majority of
> translators make.  See KJV, RSV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, KJ21, ASV, TEV,
> NCV, CEV, as well as Young, Phillips, Darby, Webster, Green, Wesley,
> Weymouth.  This was Jeromes's translation, "in temptationem," and following
> the Vulgate, Douay-Rheims and Knox. 

Sure, but surely you see the train? A) KJV is full of Latinisms, as can
easily be seen here.  The Vulgate uses intritis in temptationem, and in
Late Latin "tempto" retains the sense of "test" as a primary
definition.  So any translation based on KJV or the Vulgate(such as RSV,
NKJV, KJ21, Knox, Douay-Rheims etc) will follow this tradition.  B) And
once the meaning of the word changes, but the word does not change, it
gives rise to a different interpretation that has become crystallized in
other translations--i. e. the one that you and Joe take to be so obvious
an understanding of the verse.  C) Jeffrey has presented evidence now
that the verse has been misunderstood, and so to assume that all the
translators have it right WITHOUT dealing with the evidence that Jeffrey
has presented is a circular argument.


 Cognates of temptation are found in
> French, "tentation" (Segond, Jerusalem), Italian, "tentazione" (CEI, LND,
> IBS), Spanish, "tentacion" (RVR1960,  NVI, RVR1995, DHH, RVA, LBLA,
> CST-IBS), and Portugues, "tentacao" (NVI, IBS, PORAA).  Luther chose
> "Versuchung" as did his revisers (1912, 1975, 1984) and successors
> (Elberfelder).   The Staatenvertaling, "verzoeking," and the IBS
> "verleiding" are equivalent.  Scandanavian versions are all of the
> "frestar/frestele" variety (SVL, SV1917, DN1933, DNB1930, Nor-IBS), while
> Russian has "iskushyeniye" (Russv, IBS).  In all of these languages, the
> terms used have the sense of resisting temptation, i.e., passing a test of
> moral character.

But again, you're reading and restricting your definition of
"temptation".  None of these words you cite from all this are restricted
to definitions of "moral character" and in the case of the Romance
languages, why should we be surprised that modern descendants of
"temptatio" are used?  And in each of these cases, the preceeding verb
and negative purpose particles are used which you leave out meaning "so
that you not enter into X".  Where else in the Bible or in Christian
literature is temptation in your sense something we enter into? 
Something we experience, something someone else does to us, sure, but
that we actively enter into "temptation" of ourselves doesn't make a
whole lot of linguistic sense.


 
> The use of "test" or "trial" to render PEIRASMOS is decidedly out of the
> ordinary, if not idiosyncratic.  


Perhaps out of the ordinary but I would hesitate to call it
idiosyncratic.  The word 

"PEIRASMOS"and its Hebrew equivalent mean a test or a trial, it is
indeed only tradition that maintains that the word "temptation" is the
better choice even though its semantic field has significantly shifted
in the last five hundred years.  But then translators and translations
are often slow to change cheristhed texts.

Larry Swain