Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

water, is liable to objection. For it proceeds on the principle, that the Jews in the later periods of their history paid a strict regard, in their ceremonies, to what Moses had enjoined. But is this true? Did they not adopt a multitude of traditions; and by some of their traditions did they not even transgress the commandments of God? Even if Moses had not required them, in such a case as is mentioned in Sirach, to bathe their whole persons, this would not prove, that they did not, in subsequent ages, add to his requisitions on this point, as they did on other points. We may in truth say, that even if Moses did not intend there should be a total ablution in the case adduced, the word ẞantico employed to express this ablution in subsequent times, might still retain its radical power, and might indicate what addition the later Jews made to the original law. word, I say, might still be purposely used in its radical signification; and instead of the law of Moses modifying its meaning, it might show how the Jews modified the law. We might stand on such ground, and be sustained by the Jewish history. But in the present case, there is no need of taking this ground; for I trust, the evidence here produced is not only abundant, but is also appropriate and sufficient to show, that in the earlier periods of the Jewish history, Moses was understood as requiring those, who had become defiled by the touch of a dead body, to bathe their persons as the concluding ceremony of the purification.

This

I cannot then regard the statement as sufficiently sustained, that ẞantico in the Septuagint and the Apocrypha means simply to wash, to cleanse by water, without containing any reference to the manner, or the extent of the washing. The proofs that it has such a meaning are inadequate. The instances produced furnish no

satisfactory reason for thus abandoning the radical meaning of the word. They may be adduced to show that fuлtio has the meaning to wash, or cleanse, by bathing in water.

I have thus arrived at the last meaning alleged in this section.

"6. To moisten, wet, bedew; where Bάлto is used."

"Thus in Dan. 4: 30 [Eng. version 4: 33], it is said, that Nebuchadnezzar was driven from among men, and made to eat grass like the ox, and that his body was MOISTENED, WET (Búgn) with the dew of heaven.

"Dan. 5:21, His body was MOISTENED (Búgn) with the dew of heaven.”*

The Chaldee word, to which Búлto corresponds in these passages, means "like the Greek ẞúnto, both to dip and to tinge or color."+ The Greek word then is a fair representative of the Chaldee; and any remarks to be made upon it require no special modification on account of its being a translation of an original.

Is the English word moisten or wet, or bedew, an adequate representative of the Greek word? The circumstances of the case may furnish a reply to this question. They show how very extensive was this moistening or wetting; and how very appropriately the word ẞúлtw is used in these places. For Nebuchadnezzar had been, for nights in succession, till seven times had passed over him, COVERED with dew; he had been, as it were, wet all over with it; as we say in familiar conversation, he had been without a dry spot. Driven from human habitations, and dwelling with the beasts of the field, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws, thus abiding in the open air all night, exposed to

[blocks in formation]

the copious dews of an oriental climate, and destitute of clothing, what could be more natural than to speak of him as having been immersed in, or covered with, the dew of heaven? In relating so signal, so unusual an event, the word, formed from a root whose " leading and original meaning" is "dipping, plunging, immerging, soaking, or drenching, in some liquid substance," would readily present itself to the writer's mind; nor with the full knowledge of its proper meaning, would he have any doubt that every reader would rightly understand it. The Scriptures are not "coldly correct and critically dull;" the language of common life breathes through all their pages. And who, I ask, in relating this singular event, or narrating it with his pen, would hesitate a moment to say, the unhappy monarch was drenched with the dew of heaven? And what critic in commenting upon this expression, would be thought to have done justice to it, by saying, the word drench means to moisten, or bedew, or wet? To say that the word fάnto in the passages produced from Daniel, is only equivalent to moisten, or bedew, or wet, seems to me an error somewhat akin to his, who should say that in this passage of Milton,

A cold shuddering dew
Dips me all o'er,*

the word dips is adequately explained by ascribing to it the meaning to moisten. And though a dictionary should mention the word moisten or bedew, as one of the meanings of the verb dip, on account of this passage of Milton, yet who would feel that the word was properly explained, or that the passage was properly explained

* Comus.

without a reference to the primary, original meaning of the word dip?

I consider, then, the word Súлro as hyperbolically used in the book of Daniel; and as naturally suggested by the circumstance, that the whole surface of Nebuchadnezzar's body was exposed to the dew, and became covered with it; so that much the same effect was produced, as if his body had been immersed in it. These passages are easily explained without ascribing to fάлτ the meaning to moisten; and therefore they do not require this additional item in the significations of the word.

A summary of the results to which the examination in this section conducts, may be thus expressed :

Of the six meanings ascribed, by Prof. Stuart, to βάπτω and βαπτίζω in the Septuagint and the Apocrypha, no dependence can be placed on number 4, because the example produced is a doubtful one; number 2 is incorrect, as it arises from not sufficiently regarding the Hebrew construction; number 6 is inapplicable, as it merely exhibits a hyperbolical use of the word; number 5 is defective, as no good reason can be produced to show that the washing, the cleansing, was not performed by a total bathing of the person, and good reasons can be produced to show, that an entire bathing was performed. The remaining significations, number 1, to plunge, immerse, dip in, and number 3, to overwhelm, are unquestionable.

Of these six meanings, three are illustrated by passages containing the word faлl; namely; 1, to plunge, immerse, dip in; 3, to overwhelm; 5, to wash, cleanse by water. To this fifth meaning there should have been annexed, according to the preceding examination, a notice that the washing, or cleansing, was performed by a bathing or an immersing, of the person.

The meanings, then, of Barilgo in the Septuagint and the Apocrypha, may be thus stated;

1. To plunge, immerse, dip in.

2. To overwhelm.

3. To wash, or cleanse, by bathing the person in water.

SECTION THIRD.

"Meaning of the words fántw, Banτlzw, and their derivatives in the New Testament, when not applied to the rite of Baptism.”

Two meanings are here ascribed to fáлtw; 1, "to dip ;"* as in Luke 16: 24, That he may DIP (Bayn) the tip of his finger in water; John 13: 26, It is he to whom I shall give the morsel or crumb [Eng. ver. a sop] when I have DIPPED it (βάψας).

If in the first of these verses, the rendering wet should be preferred to dip, because datos [water] is in the Genitive and may be considered "the Genitive of instrument,"* there still can be no doubt that the action mentioned was to be performed by dipping.

2. The second meaning is "to dye;"* as in "Rev. 19: 13, a garment DYED (ẞɛßaμμévov) in blood,” [Eng. ver. a vesture dipped in blood].

This word (ẞáлτш, baрto) is not used in the New Testament with reference to baptism; nor do any of its derivatives occur. We may pass then at once to the other word, Banilo [baptizo].

1. The first meaning which the article under consideration ascribes to ẞantly in the New Testament, when

* P. 309.

« AnteriorContinuar »