Kata Markon

["Sid Martin" <smartin6 AT mindspring.com>]

Oh, of course, I checked the translation of "test" and "trial".  None of the
extensive translations given is any any way related to PEIRASMOS.  As for it
not being a "dictionary," it is as authentic as any other online sources,
such as this list, for example.  Of course, one language is never simply a
code for another, and every word has a range of meaning which does not
precisely coincide with that of a word in another language.  Hence, the art
of translation.  "Test" may meaning "examination" and "trial" may mean
"litigation."  Think how odd it would sound, however, to say "watch and pray
that you be not examined" or, indeed, "examine," nor would "lead us not into
litigation" be entirely satisfactory.   The principle meaning of temptation
in modern English certainly is not "enticement" but the test of will arising
out of enticement.  Translators concerned with accuracy and not pedantry
realize that and translate the passages accordingly.

I find your manner personally offensive and will not be corresponding with
your further.

Sid Martin
----- Original Message -----
From: "L. J. Swain" <larry.swain AT wmich.edu>
To: "Kata Markon" <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 11:32 PM
Subject: [gmark] Re: EIS PEIRASMON


>
>
> Sid Martin wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> My dear Sid,
> To determine whether the use of "temptation" to render PEIRASMOS is
> influenced by the KJV and Vulgate, considering modern Greek versions,
> online dictionaries of modern Greek, and how an online modern Greek
> dictionary renders modern Greek PEIRASMOS into English has absolutely NO
> BEARING WHATSOEVER on whether modern English "temptation" has not
> undergone something of a semantic shift or whether retention of it in
> the face of better English words in some contexts is out of respect for
> hoary tradition.  We won't even enter into the lexicographic issues of
> the semantic fields of modern PEIRASMOS and Koine PEIRASMOS(diachronic
> issue), nor into the issue of whether "temptation" is the ONLY
> justifiable and even best way to define modern Greek PEIRASMOS in
> English (synchronic issue), but we will certainly note that modern Greek
> usage vis-a-vis modern English usage has nothing to contribute to a
> discussion of Koine usage vis-a-vis modern English. Nor shall I engage
> the glossary style entries in this ""dictionary" and the lexicographical
> issues that raises.  By the way did you happen to check what word the
> dictionary renders  for modern English "test" or "trial" out of academic
> thoroughness?
>
> Your original question was answered: temptation isn't always the best
> word to use because the primary meaning of temptation in modern English
> is not a "test" or "trial" but rather an "enticement".  The retention of
> the word in many modern translations is attributable to the influence of
> the Vulgate and KJV.  Deal with the relevant data, Sid.
>
> >
> > 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).
>
>
> Perhaps, but not necessarily.  For one thing, I rather doubt that one
> can extract a commentary on this verse alone, conflated as the double,
> triple, and quadruple tradition usually is in Christian thought to form
> a single account instead of four.  But even were that possible and
> someone did comment on this verse specifically, it is unlikely that he
> commented on the use of PEIRASMOS, being more interested in allegorical
> symbolism such as the 3 times Jesus goes to pray and come back and what
> that signifies, as in the first true commentary on Mark, once thought to
> be by Jerome, but shown now not to be.  We shouldn't really expect, in
> any case, an ancient writer to tell us what to them is the obvious
> reading in a commentary, since it is, well, obvious.  Let me also point
> out that the writers of the "New Testament" were steeped in the LXX as
> were their communities, so looking in patristic fathers as a better
> enterprise than looking in the LXX is really not a useful exercise.
>
>
> > 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.)
>
>
> No, no, dear chap, I'm afraid you've confused things. I said that there
> is nothing in Mark 14:38 to indicate to me that the sense is reflexive
> or passive, that there is a sense in which ERXOMAI suddenly means endure
> and experience rather than engage in, its figurative meaning.  JEFFREY
> demonstrated a) that PEIRASMOS is something that the follower of Jesus
> should expect and in fact welcome (Jas. 1:2) so if Jesus is hear
> commanding his disciples to pray that they be exempted or not experience
> PEIRASMOS we have Jesus basically contradicting not only himself, but
> almost every passage in the Hebrew Bible and in the NT on the subject,
> b) that the construction MH ERXOMAI EIS in the LXX means "to enter upon,
> to engage in" and NOT "to experience or suffer".  As for your comment
> regarding the "sense"not the "grammar", the two are the same, grammar is
> the set of linguistic devices we use to convey meaning and sense, so the
> grammatical construction tells us what the sense is.  Ps 142:2 for
> example.  The LXX says "Enter not into judgement with your servant".  If
> we ignored the grammar here of the MH ERXOMAI EIS and translated the
> phrase with the sense you give it in Mark, it would indeed mean "do not
> experience judgement with your servant", the very thing you say is
> nonsensical.  Now that you realize that this construction translated the
> way Joe wishes in Mark is not only ungrammatical, nonsensical, and
> contradictory to Jesus own teaching, perhaps you'll come around.
>
> > 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.
>
> For one thing, dear Sid, nouns are not active or passive, verbs are.  I
> Pet 4:12 also makes clear with the choice of verb  and pronoun  and
> preposition what is going on:  the verb is GINOMAI, EN HUMIN, to you,
> PROS.... in short, the clarity is there not because of the "PEIRASMON"
> not being passive, but because the PURWSEI happens TO YOU FOR YOUR
> TESTING....this isn't parallel at all to Mark 14:38 which has "you" as
> the subject, an active verb "enter" and an object, "test", very simple
> grammatically.
>
> > 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.
>
> Once again, look at the whole sentence, the verbs, etc, not just your
> piece of the pie and you'll find that that the clarity is not in the
> word PEIRASMON as active or passive, but in what surrounds it.  I'll
> repeat, if in Mark 14:38 something would either have to be passive (a
> verb form) or reflexive (something to indicate that the "testing" is
> happening to the subject, such as "EN HUMIN").  But since there is
> nothing, we are left with a problem, a problem I might add that
> interpreters before Jeffrey have noted, if you go back and reread the
> first section of his paper you will find a number of scholars cited
> there wrestling with the issue, and more in their footnotes.
>
>
> <snip of more irrelavant and misunderstood Greek passages)
> > In none of these passages have the authors seen fit to employ a
> > passive construction to convey a passive sense.
>
> But the author does employ prounous and possessive adjectives, and in
> none of those cases is the subject of the sentence acting on the
> PEIRASMON, and in none of those cases do we have the absence of pronouns
> or possessive adjectives that make very clear who is being tested.  We
> have a complete absence of that in Mark 14:38.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> After responding to all of this Sid, I'm not certain you've actually
> read Jeffrey's paper so much as you've engaged material posted by Joe
> and to a lesser extent by me.  I would invite you to reread Jeffrey's
> paper and pay close attention to the construction of his case and deal
> specifically with the material he presents there.
> So far neither you nor Joe have dealt with the data.
>
> Regards,
> Larry Swain
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to gmark as: smartin6 AT mindspring.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')