Martin Luther on the Meaning of Baptizo
Martin Luther (1483-1546) was one of the luminaries of the Reformation Movement. While he was mistaken about some things in his pursuit to reform the Catholic Church, he was correct on several particulars.
One particular that some may not realize was that Martin Luther did not hold the view that baptism was merely a washing that could be completed either by sprinkling, pouring or immersing. He recognized that the Greek word baptizo was specific to the action of immersing to the exclusion of the other two modes. There were other Greek words for sprinkling (rhantizo) and pouring (cheo), but these never applied to Christian baptism.
In a 1520 treatise entitled “A Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church” Martin Luther made the following observation about the meaning of the Anglicized word “baptism” in a section entitled “The Sacrament of Baptism”. He wrote:
The second part of baptism is the sign, or sacrament, which is that immersion into water whence also it derives its name; for the Greek baptizo means I immerse, and baptisma means immersion.
– Martin Luther, “A Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” Lane Hall, Works of Martin Luther with Introductions & Notes, Philadelphia, PA: A. J. Company, 1915, pp. 226-227)
If one examines the history behind King James and the translation he commissioned, they will learn that the king restricted certain words from being translated. Keep in mind one of the goals of the King James Version was to build a universal translation to harmonize the feuding religious factions in Great Britain in the various versions they used in their day; e.g., Geneva Bible, Bishop’s Bible, Miles Coverdale Bible and Matthews Bible. Among these “hot-button” words included the Greek word baptizo. King James insisted that this word was to be transliterated from the Latin Vulgate and Anglicized into English as “baptize”, not translated. This may have increased the acceptance of the King James Version in that time period; however, the lack of foresight in this action has perpetuated one of the more glaring religious errors—that we can pick and choose what mode we use when we “baptize”—sprinkle, pour or immerse. Baptism is a burial, and only one mode clearly matches that picture—immersion, not sprinkling or pouring (Romans 6:1-6).
drkenney and 
Phil Derksen are discussing. 
Phil Derksen 7:10 pm on October 19, 2012 Permalink |
No one is more pro-immersion than I. However, you are mistaken about King James’ supposed role in the transliteration of baptizo. if you check, all of the earlier translations you mention do the same thing. The KJV simply followed suite in this case. In the preface to its readers, the KJV’s translators do remark that they do not follow some “Puritans, who leave the old ecclesiastical words and betake them to other, as when they put washing for baptism, and congregation for church.”
drkenney 11:36 am on October 20, 2012 Permalink |
Phil:
I appreciate your clarification on the KJV translators following the prior practice of transliterating, rather than translating, the word baptizo as prior translations of Mark 16:16 indicate:
he that beleueth and is baptised shall be saved;
But he that beleveth not shalbe dampned.
(Tyndale Bible, 1534 Edition)
Who so believeth and is baptized, shall be saved;
But who so believeth not, shall be damned.
(Coverdale Bible 1535 Edition)
he that beleueth & is baptised, shall be saued.
But he that beleueth not, shalbe damned.
(Matthew Bible 1549 Edition)
He that shall beleeue and be baptized, shalbe saued:
but he that will not beleeue, shalbe damned.
(Geneva Bible, 1583 edition)
he that beleueth & is baptised, shalbe saued.
But he that beleueth not, shalbe dampned.
(Great Bible 1540)
He that beleueth, and is baptized, shalbe saued:
But he that beleueth not, shalbe dampned.
(Bishops’ Bible 1568 Edition)
He that beleeueth and is baptized, shal be saued:
but he that beleeueth not, shal be condemned.
(Doway-Rhemes, 1610 Edition)
He that beleeueth and is baptized, shalbe saued,
but he that beleeueth not, shall be damned.
(King James Bible, 1611 Edition)
SOURCE: http://www.biblesofthepast.com/
I found the following relating statement of interest: “The introduction in the King James Version declares that the practice of translating used in the Puritan Geneva Bible is insufficient: ‘Lastly, we have…avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put ‘washing’ for ‘Baptism’ and ‘congregation’ instead of ‘Church’.” The Puritans preferred to use the meaning of the a word rather than the transliteration, but principle two guided translators to use the word church for the Greek term that meant congregations” (Donald L. Brake and Shelly Beach, A Visual History of the King James Bible, p. 117.)
So clearly they were honed in on transliterating versus translating of certain words. Also, they were aware of the “baptized” versus “washing” controversy as well. They would not have translated baptizo as “immerse” because that was in contradiction to their stated purpose–to produce a translation that the contending denominations could agree on. This is shown by Martin Luther’s statement above which proceeded the 1611 KJV.
Alexander Campbell made this point as well: “It is a fact well known in some parts of Europe, and also to some persons in the United States, that king James, by whose authority the present common versions of the scriptures was made, prohibited the translators from translating into English baptisma and baptizo where these word respected the rites; but ordered them to adopt these words as they were adopted in the Vulgate. These were not the only words concerning which the king gave instructions. His object was to prevent any of the contending parties in the church, from having any superior advantage from the new version, choosing rather to adopt than translate such words as were a subject of dispute among controversialists, leaving each party to affix what meaning it chose to these words. Had the translators had been at liberty to have rendered these terms by appropriate words, the controversy would have been at an end long ere now.” –Alexander Campbell, Campbell-Walker Debate, p. 128.
So the 1611 translators, as you point out, perpetuated the transliteration of baptizo because it suited their stated purpose–to create a translation that they could all accept. The practice continues on in the major translations of our day–transliterating rather than translating baptizo to appeal to a larger market. Tragically many do not have a clear view as to what Christ commanded–immersion, not sprinkling or pouring.
Thanks for your clarifying point!
David R. Kenney