Re: Lord's Prayer and meaning of PEIRASMOS

From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Tue Jul 01 1997 - 03:10:27 EDT


On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:14:41 -0500 (CDT) Jeffrey Gibson
<jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu> writes:

snip

>First of all, thanks so much to the many B-Greekers who have
>publicly or privately written to me about my post.

>Second, in reply to Paul Dixon who, on Mon, 30 Jun 1997, wrote:
>
>> If Jeff Gibson is right that the overwhelming evidence for the
>> meaning of PEIRASMOS is "a trial which puts (someone or
>> something) to the proof ... a test or trial of faithfulness," and if
>> we are told in James that we should count it all joy when we
>> encounter various PEIRASMOIS, "knowing that the testing of
>> your faith produces endurance ... in order that you may be
>> perfect and complete" (1:2-3), then does it not seem
>> strange that we should pray that God would not lead us into
>> such testings? Certainly, they are for our good.
>>
>> Does this, coupled with the fact that the verbal form does
>> consistently mean "tempt" (Mt 4:1, Js 1:13-14, for starters),
>> explain why translations have traditionally rendered it
>> "temptation"?
 
snip

>the following needs to be said:
>
>1. It is precisely because "it seem[s] strange that we should pray
>that God would not lead us into such testings" that the view of the
>petition as envisaging the testing of believers (either now or in
>some "final/eschatological PEIRASMOS" is so questionable. They
>would then be asking "Deny us the privilege of being found faithful
>in PEIRASMOS; dispenses us from fulfilling God's will in such a
>test". Note, too, that should PEIRASMOS bear the sense that
>"temptation" nowadays connotes, namely, "incitement to do what is
>known to be wrong, an inner inclination to wrongdoing with the
>prospect of pleasure or advantage", then it is even more difficult
>to think that it is believers experiencing PEIRASMOS that is in
>view in the petition. For the petition then has in mind the
>possibility of God intending to lead or even deliberately leading
>his own into situations where they will be enticed to do what they
>know is wrong.

I see. You are concluding since PEIRASMOS means test or trial
for faithfulness, and since such results in good for Christians, then
it makes no sense for Christians to pray this petition. Therefore, it
must be a petition for non-Christians.

Hmm, this does pose some problems. See below.

>2. It is simply not the case that the verbal form of PEIRASMOS,
>i.e., PEIRAZW or EKPEIRAZW means "tempt" in the sense of
> "attract, allure, entice, dispose, incline." <snip, snip>
> ... PEIRAZW and EKPEIRAZW *always* mean "to put to the
> test", "to prove".

I did quite a bit of snipping here to save space. Yes, I would be
interested in your word study on PEIRAZW/EKPEIRAZW.

It does seem that PEIRAZW has at least two meanings in
scripture, if for no other reason than the occurrence of it in
James 1:13-14. Here it has to mean temptation in the sense of
"attract, allure, entice, dispose, incline" toward evil. If it means
test or trial, as it does in Js 1:2, then we are forced to conclude
from v. 13 that God tests no one (QEOS ... PEIRAZWEI DE
AUTOS OUDENA). But, we know that God does test His
people (cf. Gen 22:1 [LXX]).

>3. The reason that translations have rendered PEIRASMOS
>"temptation" is *not*, as *seems* to be implied by your question,
>that the Greek noun really bore connotations now associated with
>the English term, but that our English equivalent ultimately
>derives from the Latin term used as the equivalent of PEIRASMOS,
>namely, _tempt- tentationem_. And in this connection, it is very
>important to note that for a large part of the history of its
>usage, the English term "temptation" did not mean "temptation" as
>it is now understood. It meant "a proof", a "test" (Check out the
>OED on this). So when, say, Tyndale or Wycliffe, let alone the KJV,
>has "lead us not into temptation", what is mean by "temptation" is
>what I have claimed is meant by PEIRASMOS..

The English change in meaning of "temptation" is interesting.
Nevertheless, I would like to see your discussion on the meaning
of PEIRAZW in James 1:13-14, as mentioned above. This does
seem to pose a serious problem to your contention that
PEIRAZW never means anything but test or trial.

Furthermore, your conclusion in the Lord's Prayer that the petition
is not for Christians, but for non-Christians, is curious. How do you
deal with the facts that 1) Christ is addressing His disciples, and
2) the prayer is addressed hMWN PATHR?

Your reasoning here, however, is based upon an assumption you
might want to reconsider. By what right do you infer from

MH EISENEGKHS hMAS EIS PEIRASMON

that God may lead us into PEIRASMON if we don't pray this?
We can no more infer this than we can infer that if we don't
ask Him for our daily bread, then He won't give it to us.
He has given us our daily bread many times when we did
not ask for it. Furthermore, if we persist in this inference,
then we are faced with the contradiction of James 1:13-14.
So, since the inference is not necessitated by the text (or
by logic), and since such is categorically denied elsewhere,
why not just drop it? Sure would relieve us of the problem
with which we started.

Thanks again for your study.

Sincerely,

Paul S. Dixon



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:21 EDT