Baptizo

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Salty, Feb 10, 2008.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,102
    Likes Received:
    218
    We all know that "baptize" was transliterated to baptism by KJ as to allow for the COE practice of sprinkling.

    Since I am not a scholar, how was that word translated in earlier versions.

    Thanks

    Salty

    Note: this is not a debate - just curious
     
  2. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    You don't need to be a scholar.

    1. Find the word in any English version.

    2. Go to StudyLight.org [LINK] and search for the verse in the various versions.

    Most of them transliterate the Greek word.
    For example, see Matthew 3:11

    Baptizo - Greek
    Baptizo - Vulgate [Latin] (425)
    Waische – Wycliffe (1395)
    Baptize – Tyndale (1525)

    Rob
     
    #2 Deacon, Feb 10, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2008
  3. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    King James was not involved in the translation process. Regardless, the word "baptism" was already in use when the KJV was translated. It was included in an English dictionary in 1604. http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/ret/cawdrey/cawdrey0.html#b
     
  4. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    Here's a link to an article I happened to come across that addresses this topic:

    http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/baptisminkjv.htm

    While I don't necessarily agree with every point that's in the article, it is an interesting read.
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    King James I was not one of the translators of the KJV, but that does not mean that he was not at all involved in the translation process.

    King James I could have made the rules that were used for the translating, and if not, he very likely had to give his approval to the rules. Approving of the rules used for the translating would seem to me to be a form of involvement or influence on the translation process. King James I, as official head of the Church of England, was likely asked to approve of the men who were selected to be the translators. King James I even followed up on the rules by making Archbishop Richard Bancroft overseer over the translating.

    In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators referred to Bancroft as the "chief overseer and task-master under his Majesty, to whom were not only we, but also our whole Church, much bound."
     
  6. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    So, then, do you agree or disagree with the OP that stated that it was King James himself who was responsible for the word "baptism" in the KJV?
     
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I would think that it is possible that the word "baptism" could have been included in the application of the third rule given the translators.

    3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, the word church not to be translated congregation, etc.

    Only one specific example is listed for this rule, but the rule referred to "ecclesiastical words" [plural] which indicates that other words were involved in the application of this rule to the translating process.

    Could not "baptism" or "baptize" have been considered ecclesiastical words?
     
  8. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Perhaps, but was it the king who was responsible for the translation rules, or did he simply appoint a committee? Do you believe his personal view on sprinkling influenced the committee to use "baptism?"
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I had forgotten in my earlier post, but the preface of the 1611 clearly indicates that "baptism" was considered one of the "old ecclesiastical words." Near the end of the preface, the phrase "old ecclesiastical words" can be found, then right after that the examples of those type words given were "baptism" and "church." The phrase may have included some other words, but the preface would seem to make it definite that it also included "baptism."
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    KJV-only author D. A. Waite suggested that King James I made the rules. Waite wrote: "Now King James had nothing to do with the translation itself other than making the rules" (Defending the KJB, p. 85).

    As the person who got the translation project started by approving the making of another translation and as head of the Church of England, King James I would have very likely have wanted to approve of the rules for the translating if he did not actually make them himself. King James' strong objection to the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible could indicate that he was directly responsible for the rule about them. If one rule came directly from him, some of the other rules and even all of them may have come from him. The known evidence seems to make it very unlikely that King James I did not at least approve the rules for the translating.
     
  11. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Baptism is really not a translation. You're correct. If it were, it would be something like immersion.

    Just like Deacon is not a translation; it is a transliteration of diakonos. "Servant" is a translation of the Greek.

    From my understanding of the matter, the King influenced the rendition of baptizo and so on.
     
  12. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Can you provide documentation of any sources that claim King James had any personal involvement in the translation process beyond approving the rules? Did he approve the work of the various committees? Did he give Bancroft specific instructions to have baptizo transliterated at "baptize?'
     
  13. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did the King confide in Bancroft? This is common knowledge.
     
  14. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Due to the evasiveness of the answers, I can only conclude that the OP is indeed in error when it states that King James personally influenced the decision to transliterate baptizo as "baptize." No evidence has been provided to substantiate that claim.

    It is common knowledge that he placed Bancroft as overseer of the translation process. Therefore, it can be said that Bancroft may had influenced the decision, but it would be a stretch to say that the king himself did.
     
  15. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,102
    Likes Received:
    218
     
  16. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,615
    Likes Received:
    44
    Was sprinkling common in the Church of England?

    The Book of Common Prayer (in use in 1611):
    "take the Childe in his handes, and...shal dippe it in the water"
    Also, pouring was allowed for sickly infants; sprinkling is not mentioned.

    The Presbyterian/Puritan mid-seventeenth-century Directory for the Public Worship of God sanctioned sprinkling as a mode of baptism.
     

Share This Page

Loading...