This article argues that it is wrong to translate πειρασμός with two different meanings, first as “trials” in James 1.2 and 12 and then as “temptations” in 1.13. Rather, πειρασμός is best translated as “temptation” in each verse. The author first examines the genre of James, then looks at both the immediate context and the broader context of the epistle. He concludes that, since James focuses on temptation and sin throughout, the best translation for the term in 1.2 and 12 is “temptations.”
AdamsSean A.2010. “Paul’s Letter Opening and Greek Epistolography: A Matter of Relationship.” Pages 33-55 in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. Edited by PorterStanleyAdamsSean. Pauline Studies 6. Leiden: Brill.
2.
BauckhamRichard. 1999. James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage. New Testament Readings. New York: Routledge.
3.
CheungLuke L.2003. The Genre, Composition and Hermeneutics of James. Carlisle: Paternoster.
4.
DibeliusMartin. 1976. Commentary on the Epistle of James. Edited by GreevenHeinrich. Translated by WilliamsMichael A.Philadelphia: Fortress.
5.
DoeringLutz. 2009. “First Peter as Early Christian Diaspora Letter.” Pages 215-38 in The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition. Edited by NiebuhrKarl-WilhelmWallRobert W.Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.
6.
FrancisFrederick O.1970. “The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and I John.” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche61: 110-26.
7.
Jackson-McCabeMatt. 2003. “The Messiah Jesus in the Mythic World of James.” Journal of Biblical Literature122: 701-30.
8.
JobesKaren H.2009. “The Minor Prophets in James, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude.” Pages 135-53 in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament. Edited by MenkenMaarten J. J.MoyiseSteve. Library of New Testament Studies 377. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
9.
KonradtMatthias. 1998. Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief: Eine Studie zu seiner soteriologischen und ethischen Konzeption. Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 22. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
10.
KonradtMatthias. 2009. “The Historical Context of the Letter of James in Light of Its Traditio-Historical Relations with First Peter.” Pages 101-25 in The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition. Edited by NiebuhrKarl-WilhelmWallRobert W.Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.
11.
LockettDarian R.2008. Purity and Worldview in the Epistle of James. Edited by GoodacreMark. Library of New Testament Studies 366. New York: T&T Clark.
12.
MooDouglas J.2000. The Letter of James. Edited by CarsonD. A. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
13.
NiebuhrKarl-Wilhelm. 1998. “Der Jakobusbrief im Licht frühjüdischer Diasporabriefe.” New Testament Studies44: 420-43.
14.
PerdueLeo G.1981. “Paraenesis and the Epistle of James.” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche72: 241-56.
15.
RauchErnst Carl. 1827. “Ueber den Brief Jakobi: Ein exegetisch-kritisch Versuch.” Neues kritisches Journal der theologischen Literatur6: 257-306.
16.
TaylorMark Edward. 2006. A Text-Linguistic Investigation into the Discourse Structure of James. Edited by GoodacreMark. Library of New Testament Studies 311. London: T&T Clark.
17.
Thomasà Kempis. 1952. The Imitation of Christ. Translated by PriceL. S.London: Penguin.
18.
ThurénLauri. 1995. “Risky Rhetoric in James?”Novum Testamentum37: 262-84.
19.
TitePhilip L.2010. “How to Begin, and Why? Diverse Functions of the Pauline Prescript within a Greco-Roman Context.” Pages 57-99 in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. Edited by PorterStanleyAdamsSean. Pauline Studies 6. Leiden: Brill.
20.
TsujiManabu. 1997. Glaube zwischen Vollkommenheit und Verweltlichung: Eine Untersuchung zur literarischen Gestalt und zur inhaltlichen Kohärenz des Jakobusbriefes. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 93. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
21.
Van UnnikW. C.1993. Das Selbstverständnis der jüdischen Diaspora in der hellenistisch-römischen Zeit. Edited by van der HorstP. W.Leiden: Brill.
22.
VerseputDonald J.2000. “Genre and Story: The Community Setting of the Epistle of James.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly62: 96-110.
23.
WachobWesley Hiram. 2000. The Voice of Jesus in the Social Rhetoric of James. Edited by BauckhamRichard. Society for New Testament Studies 106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
WachobWesley Hiram. 2007. “The Languages of ‘Household’ and ‘Kingdom’ in the Letter of James: A Socio-Rhetorical Study.” Pages 151-68 in Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James. Edited by GoodacreMark. Library of New Testament Studies 342. New York: T&T Clark.
25.
WardRoy Bowen. 1969. “Partiality in the Assembly: James 2.2-4.” Harvard Theological Review62: 87-97.
26.
WatsonDuane. 1993a. “James 2 in Light of Greco-Roman Schemes of Argumentation.” New Testament Studies39: 94-121.
27.
WatsonDuane. 1993b. “The Rhetoric of James 3.1-12 and a Classical Pattern of Argumentation.” Novum Testamentum35: 48-64.
28.
WindischHans. 1951. Die katholischen Briefe. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 15. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
