Washings and the Traditions of the Elders

In your reply to my sixth letter you say: “If I remember correctly, a certain Baptist writer translates the passage to which you refer, in the writings of the Son of Sirach, somewhat like this: ‘If he who has dipped or immersed himself on account of a dead body, shall again touch the corpse, what does his immersion avail?’ I would like to hear what you have to say to that.”

First of all I have to say that this translation is just like the “certain Baptist writer” to whom you refer. He begins with the assumption that because baptizo in the classic Greek means immerse, therefore it means immerse everywhere and always, and he makes everything bend to this theory.

Were I to declare that baptizo, in Jewish writings, always means to sprinkle, I could prove it with less violence to the laws of language than the ‘‘certain Baptist writer” is perpetually committing in asserting dogmatically that it always means immerse.

To take, for example, the case of Naaman at the Jordan, I could say that it was certain that the Syrian general sprinkled himself, for there could be no question that the person alluded to in Ecclesiasticus cleansed himself by sprinkling. True the Hebrew states that Naaman dipped himself; but that is a mere figure of speech. He simply sprinkled himself; but he did it so copiously that he was just as wet as though he had dipped himself, and for that reason the Hebrew word tawbal is used; and I could justify myself by quoting Milton: “The dew dips me all o’er.” Dew comes down in mist, sprinkling one; but it may be so thorough a wetting as to be called a dipping. That sort of talk would be as reasonable as much of that “certain Baptist writer’s”; that is, it would be very unreasonable.

But now, when I say that this word baptizo, meaning originally, in classic Greek, to immerse, came by a very common process, “illustrated in the history of a thousand words,” to mean, in Jewish usage, to cleanse or purify, without reference to mode, I make a statement which does violence to no law of language. Here in the history of Naaman the Septuagint says that he baptized himself — that is, cleansed himself ceremonially — in the Jordan. The Hebrew says that he dipped himself. There is no contradiction; the Septuagint states the general fact of the cleansing; the Hebrew states the particular mode in which the cleansing was done on that occasion. All is reasonable; no violence is done to any principle of interpretation whatever. It is not necessary to assume, as some do, that the Seventy intended to say the thing exactly as the Hebrew has said it; they often varied from the Hebrew in a similar way. Were two men who have traveled together from New York to Chicago to report their journey, the one might say: “We went by rail;” the other might say: “We went by a Pullman.” The reader who should therefore insist that these two expressions were entirely synonymous, and that nobody could go by rail without taking a Pullman, would reason just as does the writer you quote on this subject.

There is such a thing as a fair treatment of language; there is such a thing as an unfair treatment of it. Dr. — is sometimes very extravagant in his dogmatic statements; his exegesis is violent and unreasonable and fails to carry conviction to those who stop to examine.

Let us look for a moment at his translation of the words of the Son of Sirach: “If one who has dipped or immersed himself on account of a dead body, shall afterwards touch again the dead body, what shall his dipping or immersion avail him?” Is this a fair translation? It can be shown, I think, that it is very unfair. It is a translation that he would never have thought of, but for that unwarranted assumption of his as to the meaning of baptizo. He says: “This word means dip, or immerse; it always means dip, or immerse; it can’t mean anything else; everything must yield to this.”

Did not the Son of Sirach know the law of Moses to which he alludes in reference to ceremonial cleansing after one had touched a dead body? No one can question that. What was that law? I quoted it in my last letter; but let me refer to it again. It is very well worth our while to have it distinctly before us. This passage is the great battleground of this controversy. Turn to Numbers 19:13, and you read: “Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man, and purifieth not himself,... that soul shall be cut off from Israel; because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean.” That is the whole of it. Not because he was not immersed — there was no immersion about it. The 17th and 18th verses describe the whole process: “They shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification of sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel: and a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon him that touched the dead.”

The 19th verse goes on to give directions that this should be done by a clean person, and should be done twice — on the third day and on the seventh. The only “dipping” was of the hyssop into the water.

What right has Dr. — to translate: “If any person has dipped or immersed himself on account of a dead body”? Did not the Son of Sirach know the law? He had seen it executed many a time, no doubt. And he says no such thing as the doctor has put into his mouth. What he says is: “If the man who has been baptized (that is, cleansed ceremonially) from a dead body — if he shall touch the dead body again, what does his cleansing avail him?” He said this, knowing that the whole process of baptism spoken of was in the sprinkling of the water which had been put upon the ashes of the burnt heifer. If the water of separation had not been sprinkled upon him, he was unclean; if it had, he was cleansed.

The doctor’s translation is an unpardonable violence to the laws of human speech. When a man’s theory compels him to such violence, he should conclude that his theory is wrong. After my study of this passage, I never could again assert that baptizo always meant immerse — never — for here was a plain case, plain as day, where it was used in reference to a ceremonial cleansing that consisted wholly In sprinkling, and Yet it was called baptism.

And this was in a writing that was two hundred years old when Christ was born.

But this to which I have referred is not the only violence to language which the doctor’s translation of this passage involves. The preposition apo means “from,” not “on account of.” To speak of being “cleansed from a dead body” makes good sense; to speak of being i “immersed from a dead body” does not. So the doctor must translate apo “on account of.” This is, to say the least, strained and far-fetched. In one instance in a thousand, perhaps, it might possibly bear such a translation. But it is doubtful. Certainly no such translation is given to it in the New Testament, although it is used about four hundred times.

Nor is this all. His translation of the last part of the sentence is not only without adequate foundation; it is absolutely against all the dictionaries and all the examples which I have been able to find. It is another illustration of the doctor’s facility of assumption. “What avails his dipping, or immersion?” he renders it. The Greek word is loutro. Louo, the verb, is used six times in the Greek Testament and is always translated “wash.” The noun is used twice and is in both cases translated “washing.” The translation that I have given to it expresses the idea perfectly: “If he touch the dead body again, what avails his cleansing?”

The word often and more strictly means ‘‘a bath.” And this suggests the very interesting and pertinent question as to what was the ancient method of bathing. For, as you know without any doubt, Baptist writers generally insist that “bathing” implies immersion. This is the doctor’s assumption in his translation of this passage before us. It is a groundless assumption. I think whoever studies the subject thoroughly will find it true that in all Eastern bathing, in both ancient and modern times, it was regarded as a matter of chief importance that the water should be in motion. This was especially so among the Jews. The water applied to the ashes was to be “running water,” as seen from the quotation above. (Num. 19:17.) In the Hebrew it is literally “living” water. (See marginal rendering in Num. 19:17; Lev. 14: 50, 51, 52.)

This was the idea with the Greeks and Romans as illustrated by their baths, as described by Dr. William Smith in his dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. “It would appear,” he says, “from the description of the bath administered to Ulysses in the palace of Circe, that the vessel did not contain water itself, but was only used for the bather to sit in while the water was poured over him. The water was heated in a large caldron, under which the fire was placed, and when sufficiently warmed was taken out in other vessels and poured over the head and shoulders of the person who sat in the bathtub.”

Dr. Smith further says: “On ancient vases, on which persons are represented bathing, we never find anything corresponding to a modern bath in which persons can stand or sit; but there is always a round or oval basin resting on a stand, by the side of which those who are bathing are represented standing undressed and washing themselves.”¹

Confirmatory of this is a description given by Plutarch of bathing among the Greeks, in which he says: “Some give orders to throw the water on cold; others warm.”²

Wilkinson, on the manners and customs of the ancient Egyptians, speaks of a painting in an old tomb at Thebes, which represents a lady at the bath, in which one of her attendants is pouring water from a vase over her head.³

Travelers in the East find the same custom, even when persons resort to a river for bathing. It is not for immersion, but for running water, which is thrown, poured, or sprinkled upon the bather. Water in motion seems everywhere to be sought for.

There is still another criticism upon the doctor’s translation of the passage from the Son of Sirach. He translates: “If he who has dipped or immersed himself,” etc. The doctor could not have failed to know, had he thought but a moment, that the person who had touched a dead body could not cleanse himself by any process whatever. The cleansing must be wrought by means of the sprinkling of the water of cleansing by another, that other being free from any taint of uncleanness.⁴

The doctor’s translation is every way awry: the only fair translation is the one which I have quoted substantially from the common edition of the Apocrypha, sometimes bound up with our old version.