Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - EIS PEIRASMON

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Sid Martin" <smartin6 AT mindspring.com>
  • To: "Kata Markon message" <GMark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: EIS PEIRASMON
  • Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 23:47:04 -0500


To determine whether the use of "temptation" to render PEIRASMOS is, as
Larry contends, a Romantic relic of the Vulgate, we may consider the modern
Greek version of the New Testament which retains EIS PEIRASMON in both Mark
14:38 and Matt 6:13. The online modern Greek dictionary I consulted, found
at www.in.gr/dictionary, gives, as its only translation of PEIRASMOS,
"temptation," and conversely renders "temptation" only as PEIRASMOS.
Further, the phrase "yield to temptation" is rendered ENDIDW STON PEIRASMO
while "chocolates and other temptations" is translated SOKOLATES KAI ALLOI
PEIRASMOI. Apparently, the Greeks themselves have given into the temptation
to equate temptation with PEIRASMOS.

If EIS PEIRASMON is to be understood as a test of God and not of man in the
New Testament, as Jeffrey maintains, it should be possible to demonstrate
from the Greek patristic writers that the cited verses, and parallels, were
so interpreted by those closest to the linguistic world of New, as opposed
to Old, Testament Greek. I have not done that myself, but perhaps someone
should. If the Greek fathers themselves thought that man, and not God, was
being tested, then Jeffrey's translation would certainly qualify as
idiosyncratic (put together by oneself).

Jeffrey attempts to prove from a few Septuagintal examples, none of which
involve the use of PEIRASMOS, that something remarkable occurs when one is
told "not to enter into" an activity which can, he says, only be done
actively and not passively. Rather, it would seem to be the sense of the
passage which requires that interpretation, not the grammatical
construction. The master would logically judge the servant and not the
reverse, Ps. 142:2 (LXX), and the living would naturally mourn and not
themselves be mourned, Jer. 16:5 (LXX). It is unlikely that Joshua would
expect the Israelites to be idolized by the heathens, Josh. 23:6 (the
passage is rather too convoluted to lend itself to comparison in any event.)

It is not as a general rule true that PEIRASMOS is to be understand in an
active and not a passive sense or that, as Larry suggests, the passive voice
would have been used if that were the sense intended. Examination of other
New Testament passages should make that clear. PROS PEIRASMON HUMIN, 1 Pet
4:12, refers to the ordeal the believers are suffering and not inflicting.
Similarly TON PEIRASMON HUMWN, Gal 4:14; PEIRASMOS HUMAS, 1 Cor 10:13; EN
TOIS PEIRASMOIS MOU, Lk 22:28. In each of these phrases, the person
referenced is succumbing to, and not engaging in, PEIRASMOS.

Other similar usage may be cited. It is the man who endures
temptation/testing/trial, HUPOMENEI PEIRASMON, who is blessed, Jas 1:12,
while it is Paul who endures "PEIRASMON TWN SUMBANTWN MOI," in Acts 20:19.
In Lk 8:13, it is the roots which are subjected to PEIRASMOI; in Jas 1:2, it
is the faithful, as also at 1 Pet 1:6, while the inhabitants of the world
are those afflicted in Rev 3:10. So, too, those who want to be rich fall
passively into PEIRASMON just as they are trapped inactively by desires in 1
Tim 6:9. In none of these passages have the authors seen fit to employ a
passive construction to convey a passive sense. I'm not convinced that MH
EISELQHS EIS changes that. The only active use of PEIRASMOS I can find in
the NT is Lk 4:13 where it is the devil himself who has finished all his
actively inflicted PEIRASMON. Unlike the sleepy disciples, that is only to
be expected.


Sid Martin
Tulsa, Okla.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page