I wouldn't say I've been avoiding writting about baptism but I suppose I have. It's become a point of focus over the last year because of the Church of Christ I am attending. I cannot become a member because I haven't been baptised in a mode they recognise. (I was baptised age 6 with pouring rather than the full immersion).
Church of Christ (or at least the one I attend) dictates that to become a member full immersion adult baptism must be followed. I'm not really interested in debating baptism as such in this post but for completeness sake I don't beleive there is biblical support for invalidating modes of baptism other than full immersion (e.g. sprinkling, pouring, immersion). And before anyone starts quoting verses of defining the word baptism I am reasonably well read both scripturally and theologically on Baptism and am aware of "scriptural interpretations" that lead people judge others interpretation of baptism.
The real point of this post is to try to get some information. We had a baptism sermon on Sunday gone. Our pastor explained that baptism derives from Greek and means "immersion" (which I believe is over simplified) and went onto explain why we use the word baptism in the English language rather than the word immerse. Aparently when King James ordered the translation of the bible into English, the translators got to the word baptism and had a problem. If they used the word immersion, as they should, because baptism means immersion, King James would have had their heads because he was sprinkled. So after deliberation, the best the translators could come up with was no translating the word and just leaving baptism. Tada! Baptism entered the English language.
Now I had read this story on an essay on the etymology of the word baptism (written by a baptist) indicating that this story was an unsubstaniated conspiracy theory, and that there are texts showing use of the word baptism in English several hundred years before King James in the 1600's. So whilst baptism was a transliteration it wasn't transliterated to hide the true meaning of baptism being immersion.
Anyway, I was wondering whether any of you had any info on the topic or had heard similar stories and know of any others or if there's any work been done on substantiating King James' sneaky translation story.
The sermon on the weekend got me thinking a bit about content of sermons. I was thinking our pastor ain't a historian, and he should really stick to scripture which is more his area of expertise. I'll see if I can get any reference off him for where he got his info from, but I would be quite concerned if the story is just an unsubstantiated story passed off as fact to an unsuspecting congregation.
My 2 cents for today ;)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
As I mentioned I emailed my lecturer and He confirmed the King James theory...my question and his answer are below...
Is the theory about King James correct? That the translators used the word baptism instead of translating it to immersion because the king had been sprinkled and they wanted to protect their heads for the chop?
As far as I know this is true. "Baptism" already had a meaning in the C of E and they were too afraid to translate the meaning, so they left the Greek word which had already acquired a religious meaning.
i asked a few other questions and Im happy to forward you the email if u want...
"I was thinking our pastor ain't a historian, and he should really stick to scripture which is more his area of expertise."
That is a really unfair comment Pete. It's like when people say not to mix religion and business. or religion and politics.
With the comment about 'historian' vs 'scripture' or however you like, I have to agree to some extent with Bek. Scripture itself CARRIES history, I don't believe we can unpack scripture without looking at the history surrounding it.
The course that I did on 'biblical preaching' written by Graham Johnston makes it very clear that to unpack the scriptural significance of a passage for 'today' you have to unpack what it meant when it was written and also look other significant times when it may have been intepreted throughout church history.
In this case, I too have been told 'as fact' the story about the KJV translation (whether or not it IS fact I can't be sure, but the person who told me is generally very knowledgable about church history) and it is actually an example I use when talking to people who profess 'KJV only'. I think it is well and truly 'relevant' as part of the discussion on baptism.
Just my 2 cents:)
Hey guys, good comments, I did sound a bit harsh.
After doing some research (and thanks to bec for her help) it does appear that the king james theory is probably a conspiracy theory. From various essays and from the Oxford Dictionary of Christian History:
1). The king james wasn't the first english translation by about 300 years.
2). It wasn't even the first official english bible, the great bible and bishops bibles were authorised publications in the 1500's.
3). The King James is a very good translation (according to scholars) into conversational english of the time. It's translation is quite accurate, one of the reasons it's still being published some 400+ years after being put together.
4). the American Standard Version is apparently the best translation word for word from the Greek. That's why it doesn't read particularly well.
5). The use of the term Baptism probly came into the british isles shortly after 1066 brought by the French, who transliterated baptism.
6). According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church the KJV borrowed a lot from previous english translations and also from Luther's German text.
Suffice to say I haven't been able to find anything remotely credible that suggests that the KJV translators were responsible for the transliteration of baptism.
Now that doesn't mean the story is definately untrue, just probably, and I still maintain is sounds far fetched.
I do agree with you both that an understanding and appreciation for history is crucial for understanding biblical texts. However, it does appear that in this case history is most likely being perverted through hearsay presented as hard fact.
It's not the end of the world, I find it a worry when unsubstantiated theory is presented as truth.
My thoughts :)
Just did a search myself, it def appears that 'baptism' (or the equivalent words for the time) were in use in the English language at the time of the KJV translation. So it is entirely possible that they used the word baptism because it was already in use.
However, as becs lecturer pointed out, " "Baptism" already had a meaning in the C of E", which is exactly what we just said above. But that could also actually back up the story. It was easier to just leave the word, which already had aquired a religious meaning allowing many forms of baptism, than to translate it as 'immersion' or dipping or whatever.
Now, on an entirely different note, in reading about this I found an interesting point, a use of the word 'baptism' in the NT not necessarily referring to 'submersion'. Admittedly it is at'Wikipedia' and I generally don't use wikipedia, but it is sourced. Just check out the word Baptism, then under 'Meaning of the Greek word βαπτίζω(baptism)
" Luke 11:38 uses the verb βαπτίζω of such a ritual washing: a Pharisee, at whose house Jesus ate, "was astonished to see that he did not first wash (βαπτίζω – literally, "be baptized" or "baptize himself") before dinner." "
Food for thought
And Pete you are def right to say that passing off 'theory' as fact, from the pulpit, is dangerous. When I use history in my sermons I make sure I have checked the sources thrice.
Maybe this story, which is still conjectural, isn't the 'best' example, but at the same time, its been good cause it has made you check it out, rather than just 'accept' it.
At the heart of the issue though is your heart.
Our church recently went to what we call 'open membership'. This basically means that although our preferred and taught method of baptism is immersion, if someone else from a different church comes to ours, and for whatever reason sees their infant baptism as covering it...we accept them in, while they need to accept and embrace our view on baptism.
Many church of christ churches are going to open membership or a form of open membership.
Pete......whats stopping you from being baptised? Why not do it? It might be a great and enlightening experience for you...
hi Mark,
I've prayed long and hard about it. I was baptised when I was 6. It was a very meaningful experience for me and continues to be. I frequently repeat my baptism vows when praying.
I haven't been called to baptised again. Being at my COC is great but I cannot support the view that immersion is the only valid way to obey Jesus' command to be baptised.
But who knows what Gods has instore for the future. I wouldn't rule anything out ;)
hi Mark,
I've prayed long and hard about it. I was baptised when I was 6. It was a very meaningful experience for me and continues to be. I frequently repeat my baptism vows when praying.
I haven't been called to baptised again. Being at my COC is great but I cannot support the view that immersion is the only valid way to obey Jesus' command to be baptised.
But who knows what Gods has instore for the future. I wouldn't rule anything out ;)
I thouhgt you might find this interesting.
This has some primary sources on baptism from the first 300 years of the church.
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/baptism.php
This is from the Didache
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
This is Orthodox practice based on the above.
“Some sacraments of the Church may be received only once, others may be received often; still others are not received by everyone in the Church. Baptism belongs to the first category. Like all the sacraments, baptism is a ‘mystery’ of God’s grace working within the Church and in the life of an individual Christian. The important point when looking at baptism is not ‘Can I be baptised more than once?’, but, ‘is the Baptism I have undergone (or will undergo) a ‘real’ (or ‘valid’) baptism?’ The Orthodox Church holds to the belief that we can be baptised only once. You can only be made a member of the Church once; the Church is one Church there are not many Churches!
The Holy Orthodox Church does not arbitrarily decide on whether a baptism is ‘true’ or not. The form and action of baptism is fundamental to its nature. We seek to be true to the revelation of God and to the Holy Tradition of our Church. It is this that makes us Orthodox!
Three main criteria determine the ‘acceptability’ of a baptism: 1. the use of water; 2. baptism in the name of the Trinity; and 3. a ‘sacramental’ understanding of the nature of baptism. The later one refers to an understanding and a belief that baptism is primarily an act of God’s grace at work in the life of a person. Baptism is not a simple action – a mere ‘symbol’, nor is it only a response of the faith of a believer. Baptism is truly a mystery through which God washes away sin creating a ‘new’ creature in Christ and making the new illumed person a member of Christ’s body, His Church.
An Orthodox Christian cannot be baptised again. He or she is already a member of the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ of God. What then do we with this mystery of Grace after we have received it in baptism, well, that is another question that relates to our journey of faith that is the Christian life”.
http://www.greekorthodox.org.au/general/faq/faqbaptism
Thanks Sarah, very interesting. Plenty of resources there, should keep me busy.
Cheers for the heads up :)
Post a Comment