RE: Why isn't BAPTIZW translate

James H. Vellenga (
Thu, 19 Sep 96 09:12:47 EDT

It seems to me that there must have been some reason for making
the distinction originally. The words (according to the Perseus
site) do seem to go back to the classical period -- although I
think I've heard that ritual baptisms do too.

And again from Andrew:
> *all* of them have a ritual sense ?
> *no* real counter examples ?
> I think you should take a closer look at some of the occurences. The
> following instances don't have any ritualistic sense (Jewish or
> Christian):
> Rom. 6:3
> 1 Cor 10:2
> 1 Cor 12:13
> Gal 3:27
Yet it seems to me, as a casual reader, that these _are_ referencing
the ritual act in a metaphorical sense.

And also from Andrew:
> Yes really. The poured water in verse 3 is an example of how to
> full the hOUTW BAPTISATE "Baptize thus" command in verse 1,
> IF THOU HAST NEITHER. The first two options should be
> preferred. The 3rd is a last resort. (Also remember that the
> Didache is only an interpretation and doesn't claim divine
> inspiration).
However, the Didache is useful (divine inspiration or not) for
determining how people of nearly the same period interpreted
the words it uses.

For my personal use, I do translate BAPTIZW as "immerse" -- but
think of it as a ritual act.


James H. Vellenga |
Viewlogic Systems, Inc. __|__ 508-303-5491
293 Boston Post Road West | FAX: 508-460-8213
Marlboro, MA 01752-4615 |