Jeffrey Gibson

May I ask how you know this?

What kind of investigation of where and how frequently in the extant corpus of Greek literature πειράζω appears have you done that leads you to make the claim you made? If so, what was it? Did you use the TLG? Have you done any such investigation?

Do you yourself know what words the ancient Greeks used as synonyms of πειράζω? Do you yourself know what the Greek words are that "have similar meanings" to πειράζω as well as how many times they are used and with what meanings? If so, how do you know this?

Have you investigated what Hebrew word the LXX translators used πειράζω to translate? What meaning does this Hebrew word have? Do the LXX translators ever use πειράζω to translate any other Hebrew word(s)? Do you know?

Have you read the basic scholarly discussions -- Seesemann's, Spicq's, and especially Korn's -- on the meaning of the word? Are you even aware of these discussions and where you might find then?

Do you know for a fact, as you presumptuously imply you do, that I haven't taken the time to find and then to look at every instance of the use of πειράζω in Greek literature between the 8th century BCE and the 3rd CE and/or that I haven't had my findings checked by experts in Greek and Hebrew?

Did you read the footnotes in my article where I bring forth the evidence you say I don't have?

My money says "no" to all the above. In fact, you have no facility in Greek at all, do you, Pat?

(anyone want to wager that Pat will not only dodge giving responsive answers to all of these questions, but will argue/state/claim in one way or another that he doesn't have to, and that the questions are not important?).

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

May I ask why we should expect that you are capable of giving anything resembling and "educated" critique? What are your qualifications for doing so? You have no grounding in Ancient languages. It seems clear that you have no formal training in Biblical studies either. And I'm wagering that you haven't read much, if anything at all, of literature on the "testing of Jesus", on Christology, and the figure of Satan/the Devil, and on πειράζω that I cite. So how on earth could any critique you might give of what I wrote qualify as as an "educated" one?

And please note not only that the WTS as Matthew and Luke present it still has an intended meaning whether or not there ever was an HJ, but that the question of whether there was an HJ is absolutely irrelevant for determining what Matthew and Luke say is the nature and content of the "testing" they speak of.

So your focus on whether or not I accept an HJ not only keeps missing the point, but shows that you have no understanding of what the point is. Given this, how do you have the chutzpah to assert that you are capable of critiquing in any way what I wrote, let alone that your critique would be in any way relevant and worth considering?

Jeffrey