...

; that is, in English, vs. 17, And he shall DIP into some of the blood, is expressed in vs. 6, thus; And he shall dip... into the blood. The only difference in the two cases is, the 17th verse expresses more specifically (into some, or into a part, of the blood), what the 6th verse expresses less specifically (into the blood).

Let us now apply this principle to the two passages adduced. Lev. 4: 17 will then read, as in our English version, And the priest shall dip his finger in [into] some, or a part, of the blood: 14: 16 will read thus, And the priest shall dip his right finger into the part of the oil that is in his left hand. Thus this principle in the Hebrew language respecting 1, so repeatedly developing itself, is in this manner strictly regarded, and the verb retains its proper radical meaning.

Guided by this examination of Hebrew use, we at once see in what manner to render the Greek of the Septuagint. For the Septuagint is, in these verses, literally conformed to the Hebrew; it presents, so to speak, only a Hebrew expression in Greek words. The Septuagint then is here to be translated not by Greek rules, but by Hebrew rules. Indeed, if we should attempt to translate the Greek version of these passages according to the principles of the Greek language, I apprehend, we should find difficulties almost, if not quite, inexplicable; I apprehend we should search in vain for authorities that would warrant the employing of the English word by or with, as equivalent to the Greek and, when connected with an active verb like βάπτω.

The preceding remarks remove all difficulty from the third passage, Ex. 12: 22, which Prof. Stuart thus renders; "And MOISTENING or SMEARING it [the bundle of hyssop] with the blood (Bayavτes àñò to≈ alμatos)." The Hebrew has in this passage, ap; and the Sep

tuagint, if it had correctly and literally rendered this passage, would have employed, not Bayarтes úлd τov αἵματος, but βάψαντες εἰς τὸ αἷμα, DIPPING it into the blood. Taking the Septuagint, however, just as it now stands, how shall its language here be rendered? It is very possible, that the Hebrew manuscript which the Greek translators employed, varied from our present reading, and instead of had ; which would of course account for their manner of rendering, and would require us to explain their language in the manner that has already been exhibited. Without resorting to any mere possibility, however, let it be considered, that this expression in Exodus is one that occurs frequently in the Septuagint; it ought then to be compared with the same expression in other places. Now the other places, in which it occurs, lead us at once to that frequent Hebrew use of by which the idea of a partitive is expressed. We must then explain this passage in the Septuagint, in the same manner as we explain kindred passages. On these principles we should be constrained to render this passage in Exodus as translated in the Septuagint, in the following manner; And dipping it into some, or into a part, of the blood; the Greek nò expressing what in Hebrew is expressed by 1, that is, the idea of a partitive.

The result, then, of my remarks on these verses is, that the meaning to smear over, even though performed by dipping in, is not well supported, and consequently ought not to be retained.

But to proceed to the other alleged meanings of the two verbs.

"3. To overwhelm; where faлτl is used."

There is only one example of this use; and in this the word is employed figuratively.

"Is. 21: 4. My iniquity OVERWHELMS me (uè ẞantlçeı); where the Hebrew has ne, to terrify, etc." *

"4. Of the sense of tinging or coloring, given to Búto," there is only one example, and this a doubtful one, as "the reading is various and contested."+ It is Ezek. 23:15. Some editions of the Septuagint read Tágai Banтal, dyed, or colored turbans; while the Roman edition reads лagúẞaлrα, tinctured, colored, variegated with colors.

"5. To wash, cleanse by water; where Bantico is used." To sustain this meaning, two passages are adduced from the Apocrypha. "Thus it is said of Judith, in c. 12:7, that she went out by night, into the valley of Bethulia, and WASHED HERSELF (ẞantlεTо) in the camp, at the fountain of water."

"In Sirach, 31: 25, we find the expression ßanticóuevos inò vεzgov, he who is CLEANSED from a dead [carcase] and toucheth it again, what does he profit by his washing (1 λουτρῷ αὐτοῦ)? The phrase βαπτιζόμενος ἀπὸ νεκροῦ may be easily explained, by comparing such passages as are to be found in Lev. 11: 25. 23. 31. 39, 40. Num. 19: 18, etc. by which it appears, that a person who had touched a dead body was ceremonially defiled, and must wash his clothes and his person in order to become clean."

Of these passages, I observe, it is by no means clear that the radical meaning of ßantico [baptizo] ought to be left out of sight, so that the word should be translated by the general term wash, or cleanse, without any allusion to the specific kind, or extent, of the washing. Are there any circumstances which entirely forbid us to believe that a bathing of the whole person is here intend

ed? If the circumstances of the two cases clearly show without doubt, that an entire bathing was not performed, or could not be performed, then we must assume a modified meaning of the word. But if there be no necessity for departing from the radical and ordinary meaning, then we are not at liberty to put another construction upon the word.

Let us examine the passages. The first is Judith, c. 12:7; thus expressed in our English version, “She... went out in the night into the valley of Bethulia and washed herself in a fountain of water by the camp." Instead of in a fountain of water, a more correct translation would be at the fountain of water. What hinders us now from believing that there was an entire immersion, or bathing of her whole person? Prof. Stuart observes, "The example of Judith shows very clearly, that washing of the person may be designated by ßantico; for into the fountain in the midst of the camp, it is not probable that she plunged."* Perhaps not; but though she did not plunge, she might yet have immersed herself. Is plunging the only mode in which an immersion can be performed? Besides, the verse correctly rendered, and rendered too by Prof. Stuart a few lines preceding this sentence, does not assert that the action, whatever it was, was performed in the fountain, but at the fountain, (лl iñs anyñs). There surely may have been conveniencies for bathing the whole person "at the fountain," in the immediate vicinity of it, and conveniencies which were supplied with water from the fountain. If such accommodations were not provided for the use of the army, yet it should be remembered that there were in the immediate vicinity of Bethulia, where the army was encamped, several

* P. 308,

fountains belonging to the city; and that the one here spoken of, was a peculiarly important one, from which "all the inhabitants of Bethulia" obtained their water; (c. 7:7. 12 comp. with 13: 10). Is it unlikely that a Jewish city, thus furnished with natural supplies of water, would also be furnished at the fountain, or fountains, with artificial accommodations for bathing? Granting, however, the probability of this, it may be asked, is it probable that a female, a Jewish female, would bathe, or immerse herself, "in the midst of the camp”—a camp, too, belonging to an army of heathens? Perhaps not. But then it is nowhere, in the book of Judith, intimated that the action was performed "in the midst of the camp." All parts of a camp are not equally exposed; and the place to which she resorted seems to have been chosen, because, among other reasons, it was somewhat retired. She went to that place habitually for special prayer and purification; and the bathing or immersion, was a religious service (11 : 17. 12 : 9. 12 : 7. 13:10). The place, though within the precincts of the camp, yet might have been far from the midst of it; this c. 13: 10, 11, seems clearly to intimate. Besides, this religious ceremony was performed in the night; and she was doubtless accompanied by the maid servant whom she took with her on her adventurous expedition (10: 5. 10). She is represented as remarkable for her piety and her confidence in the divine protection; and besides, Holofernes, the general of the army, had taken her under his special protection, and had given express orders that no one should interfere with her movements, (12: 6, 7).

There is nothing, then, in the circumstances of this case which forbids us to believe that Judith did actually immerse, or bathe, her whole person. The ceremony