|
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] |
Alexander Campbell
Christian Baptism, with Its Antecedents and Consequents (1851) |
CHAPTER III.
ANCIENT VERSIONS.
|
ARGUMENT 3.--Not one of the ancient
versions uses a word indicative of sprinkling or |
EVERY class of witnesses summoned with reference to the proposition before us is regarded as a new argument. Indeed, in strict propriety, every single witness is a distinct argument; but we do not so count them in this discussion. We summon witnesses in classes to prove certain subordinate propositions, which, when proved, make full and perfect arguments in support of the grand proposition touching the action of baptism. [134] But, when offering a new argument, or summoning a new class of witnesses, I desire it to be clearly understood that it is not to fortify a previous argument, or to corroborate witnesses already adduced. We regard every single argument offered as full and sufficient of itself, if we had not another. One good argument will sustain any true proposition; for a false proposition can never bring to its aid one sound argument.
The next class of witnesses to whose testimony we invite attention is that of the ancient Versions. Of these the oldest is the Peshito Syriac Version, supposed to have been completed early in the second century: some say, at the close of the first. Dr. Henderson, a learned Pedobaptist, gives it as his opinion that "when the Lord gave the commission to the Apostles to baptize all nations, there is every reason to believe that he employed the identical word found in the Peshito Syriac Version." That word for baptizo is amad, which, this aforesaid Dr. Henderson maintains, etymologically signifies "standup," "stand erect." If this be the original word used by the Saviour in his native Syro-Chaldaic language, then baptizo found in our Greek copies must be a translation of amad, and, in the judgment of the Greek translators of Matthew, equivalent to it. But who of the Pedobaptist school will presume to say that baptizo means to stand up or stand straight? The fact, then, is, Dr. Henderson is wrong either in his construction of amad, or our Lord could not have used amad, inasmuch as all copies have baptizo in the commission, according to Matthew: and no man, now-a-days, will argue that baptizo means to stand up, or that the Syriac amad means to sprinkle, pour, or purify.
One might argue that as baptism has a resurrection in it as well as a burial, it might be no more figurative or improper to call it a rising up to a new life, than a lying down or putting off of an old one--an emersion as well as an immersion. If indeed, as some Pedobaptists suppose, it etymologically means to "stand up," or "rise up," rather than to be buried, it makes nothing at all against our views, while it certainly does against infant sprinkling: for who could make an infant stand up, or stand erect, to receive a drop of water or the sign of a cross?
But what say the lexicons?
"Castel and his editor Michaelis, Buxtorf, and Schaaf are all unanimous. The first gives the following meanings: 'Ablutus est, baptizatus est. Aphel, immersit, baptizavit.' Buxtorf gives, [135] 'Baptizari, intingi, ablui, abluere se, Ethp. Idem. Aphel, baptizare.' Schaaf: 'Ablui se, ablutus, intinctus, immersus in aquam, baptizatus est. Ethpeel, Idem quod Peal. Aphel, immersit, baptizavit.' Gutbier, in the small lexicon affixed to his edition of the Syriac Testament, gives the meaning, 'Baptizavit, baptizatus est. It. sustentavit;' but without any reference to support the last meaning; and it is apparently introduced simply for the purpose of deducing from the verb the noun columna. With this exception, the authority of the lexicons referred to is altogether against any such meaning as 'to stand.'"
These three great authorities give to amad the very same meanings which our twelve Greek Lexicons give to baptizo and its family--to immerse, dip, or plunge, and, figuratively, to wash or cleanse.
With regard to the Arabic versions, the Persic, Ethiopic, the Egyptian with its three dialects, the Coptic or Memphitic, the Sahidic or Thebaic, and the Basmuric of the Delta--to all of which the name Coptic is often applied; and with regard to the Armenian, Slavonic and Gothic, with its German, Dutch, Swedish, and Danish families, down to the Anglo-Saxon, to the history of all of which I have paid some attention so far as to trace the developments of the gospel commission; I shall give the result of my investigations, both general and special, in the words of Mr. Gotch, of Trinity College, Dublin, in his critical examination of the rendering of the word baptizo in the ancient and many of the modern versions of the New Testament:--
"The conclusions to which the investigation leads us, are--
"With regard to the ancient versions, in all of them with three exceptions, (viz. the Latin from the third century, and the Sahidic and Basmuric,) the word baptizo is translated by words purely native; and the three excepted versions adopted the Greek word, not by way of transference, but in consequence of the term having become current language.
"Of native words employed, the Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and earliest Latin, all signify to immerse; the Anglo-Saxon, both to immerse and to cleanse; the Persic, to wash; and the Slavonic, to cross. The meaning of the word adopted from the Greek, in Sahidic, Basmuric, and Latin, being also to immerse.
2. "With regard to the modern versions examined, the Eastern generally adhere to the ancient Eastern versions and translate by words signifying to immerse. Most of the Gothic dialects, viz. the German Swedish, Dutch, Danish, &c., employ altered forms of the Gothic word signifying to dip. The Icelandic uses [136] a word meaning cleanse. The Slavic dialects follow the ancient Slavonic; and the languages formed from the Latin, including the English, adopt the word baptizo; though, with respect to the English, the words wash and christen were formerly used, as well as baptize.
It may perhaps be acceptable to place these results together in a tabular form, as follows:--
Here, then, we have sixteen ancient versions, six of them in the 2d and 3d centuries, and ten of them completed before the close of the 9th, indicative of immersion--one, from the sign made in baptism by the Romanists, is rendered cross. From the 9th century, we have twenty more, all indicative of the same fact. In all these, we have thirty-six foreign, and many of them ancient versions, in proof of our first proposition.
In all these, it is not once rendered by the word sprinkle or pour. The investigation of Mr. Gotch goes to show, moreover, that the notion of either transferring the original word into translations, or of manufacturing new words, has no countenance from these thirty-six ancient and modern versions. He very justly observes--
"Our investigation, then, shows that it has not been the practice of translators, until quite recent times, to adopt the plan of 'transference' in respect to the word baptizo. The word has been translated, in most instances, by a term strictly native; or, where the term has been derived from the Greek, it appears to have become naturalized in the respective languages before the translation was made. There is no instance, until of late years, in which it can be shown that the translators made the word; and it well deserves the consideration of all who are engaged in translating, or disseminating translations of the word of God, how far such a plan is justifiable. It may, indeed, be said, that though the word baptizo has not been thus transferred, other words have; and that thereby the principle of transference is countenanced by former translators. It is certain that such words as proper names, and designations of things which are not known, and therefore have no word by which they can be expressed, must be so rendered: but what proof is there of translators, in general, carrying transference farther than this? Let it be remembered, that the Greek language was closely united to the Latin, to which the appeal has been frequently made; and that on this account, Greek words were continually naturalized in it. Such words we may expect to meet with; but to prove that translators transferred words in the modern sense of the term, it must be shown that words, the meaning of which might have been expressed in the language, were given, [138] not only by terms derived from the Greek, but without meaning;--being made for the occasion, and purposely left without definition. It will not surely be said that the word baptizo has no meaning,--that a command, involving, as most Christians believe, a thing to be done by or for every disciple, yet conveys no definite idea of what is to be done. We are not now inquiring what that meaning is: every one who attempts to translate the word of God is bound to judge for himself on that point. Let him so judge, and give the result of his judgment."
To all which we cheerfully assent.
[CBAC 134-139]
|
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] |
Alexander Campbell
Christian Baptism, with Its Antecedents and Consequents (1851) |