p. 446 | THE HEBREW "TABAL." by J. B. Tombes

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Oct 6, 1881

THE HEBREW "TABAL."

By J. B. Tombes

It is a matter that closely concerns the subject I am treating, that the Hebrew language is not wanting in specific terms to denote the various applications of water or other fluid as to mode; the same circumstance holds true in the Greek language, as we shall yet see. Now it is noticeable in the "Analytical Concordance" that, when the English word sprinkle, for example, is referred to its corresponding Hebrew synonym, the proper word is at once given, viz., zaraq, or nazah, and so as it respects other words designating different applications of water; but when it comes to render the English term dip into its Hebrew synonym, tabal is accepted, but, then, ("O tempora, O mores!") the Concordance immediately retracts, and gives to the Hebrew term the meaning of "moisten or besprinkle!" So it appears that the English term dip has no equivalent or synonym in the Hebrew language! Dr. Young is forced, by the sacred text to refer the English word dip to the Hebrew tabal, as there is no other word, indeed, to which he can properly refer it, as an equivalent, in the Hebrew. But then the text itself settles the matter.

The fact is the "Analytical Concordance" counts on Pedobaptist support, and the ingenious compiler has no idea of forfeiting that support. But Dr. Young and his clients will comfort themselves, as I have before stated, in the use of the Latin tingo, employed by several eminent lexicographers in rendering the Hebrew tabal, e. g., Buxtorf, Parkhurst, Gesenius in his "Thesaurus," and others. So also, as I have said, the learned Tertullian (second century), and Jerome. But by all these authors, as I have previously shown, tingo is used in the exclusive sense of immersion—Latin, immergo.

As this is a point, Mr. Editor, of much interest, I wish to illustrate still further. In the Latin Vulgate, with the Hebrew, Greek, Latin and also German of Luther (tetraglotten), with an English translation, we have here the Hebrew tabal (used about sixteen times) rendered by the Greek bapto et baptizo; by the Latin tingo; by the German taufen; by the English dip. Again, the Latin Bible of Jerome renders always the Hebrew nazah (sprinkle) by aspergere, as also Buxtorf does. See Lev. 4:6, 7. "And the priest shall dip (tabal) intinxerit, his finger, in ("into") the blood, and sprinkle (nazah) sparget." It will be seen that tabal and nazah are rendered here by tingo and spargo (sprinkle). Luther renders the same by tunken (dip) and sprengen (sprinkle). See Gen. 37:31, (Vulgate), "tinxerunt tunicam ejus in sanguine," dipped his coat in blood, rendered in German by tunkten (dipped). 2 Kings 9:33, Hebrew nazah is rendered in Vulgate by aspergere (sprinkle). Isaiah 63:3, nazah (sprinkled) is rendered by aspergere. Exodus 29:21, "asperges (nazah) Aaron et vestes," thou shalt sprinkle Aaron and his garments. Thus Jerome in his Latin Version (fourth century) always renders tabal by tingo in the sense only of immerse. All lexicographers agree in this. We might quote Parkhurst, who defines tabal as follows: "to dip, immerse, plunge; (2), to tinge (tingo) or dye with a certain color, which is usually performed by dipping (Eze. 23:15). So the Seventy, parabapta, baptai—Vulgate, tinctus (dipped)." I copy direct from Parkhurst's Lexicon. The celebrated lexicographer, Furst, who has been referred to as sustaining a different meaning of tabal, defines, after using the generic terms benetzen and begiessen, tabal by tauchen and eintauchen. He quotes to illustrate, Lev. 14:51; 1 Sam. 14:27; Job 9:31. Furst, in his Bible use of tabal, always renders it by dip. (German, tauchen). He also admits the prepositional regimen (before explained) as necessitating the one only Bible meaning of tabal, viz., to dip or immerse. Dr. Young should have consulted the Hebrew lexicographer, Dr. Furst, before he rendered tabal by sprinkle! This Hebraist, Furst, stands very high with Pedobaptists. But on the Bible meaning of the Hebrew tabal he is positive, and decides against them.

I will now refer directly to the terms, frequently occurring in the Hebrew Bible, which express different acts as applied to fluids. We have nazah, to wet by small quantities of fluid easily thrown upon the solid; zaraq, to throw upon, either solid or fluid, so that the thing thrown becomes active, and the thing thrown at is passive; ra hhats, to wash the body or its parts; kabas, to wash clothes; yatsaq to pour upon as liquids; tabayiu, to sink, intrans., to be sunk; tabal, to dip—eintauchen. In the Septuagint version we have the corresponding Greek terms of the above Hebrew words, viz: For nazah, we have the Greek rhantizo, to sprinkle; so it respects zaraq (raino); for ra hhats, we have the Greek louo, to wash or bathe the body; for kabas, we have pluno, to wash garments; tabayiu is rendered by (Ps. 69:14) empago, "that I may not sink;" for tabal, we have bapto, or its derivative, baptizo. These renderings into Greek, by the learned interpreters, settle the matter of the one only meaning of baptizo, viz., to dip, or immerse, and beyond the shade of a doubt it is rendered, in the New Testament, as the one only synonym of the Hebrew tabal. The evidences gained from the Septuagint are unanswerable. The author of the "Analytical Concordance" certainly has never compared the versions of the Seventy with the Hebrew—how could he, and then render tabal to sprinkle, and baptizo to consecrate!

It is here in place to speak of the Septuagint version as authority. In the first place, the interpreters themselves were men of eminent learning. They were well versed both in Hebrew and Greek, and as Hebraists they were peculiarly adapted to the work of translating Hebrew into Greek. They were convoked by royal authority for the expressed purpose of rendering the Hebrew Bible into the current Greek. (See Josephus' Antiquities, XII., c. 2.) It was accepted and used by all Jews, who understood the Greek—even Talmudists mention it favorably. The learned Jew, Philo, Greek writer on moral philosophy, and of noble family (first century), says that the Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures; he fully accepted it as a reliable version. The fathers of the Greek Church always quote from it. Aquila, Origen (see his "Hexapla"), Synachus, Theodotion, and others—all follow the Septuagint in translating tabal by the Greek baptizo, to dip. Again, there are eighty-eight verbal quotations in the New Testament that agree with the Septuagint; sixty-four more borrowed from it, with some variations; thirty-seven that adopt the same meaning; sixteen that differ from the Septuagint, that they may agree better with the Hebrew. (See Horne's Introd., vol. 1, p. 563.) From the above facts the authority of the Greek version of the Seventy is indisputable.

Can anything, then, be better proven or demonstrated than that the Hebrew tabal, especially in its Bible use, means only to dip or immerse? Irrespective, even, of the authority of the Seventy, it is proven by the best evidences of scholarship, and during a period of over twenty centuries, that baptizo (to dip, to immerse) is the one only specific equivalent of tabal; while the Hebrew term itself is shown, by the plainest principles of interpretation, philology, and syntactical construction, to denote immersion only. In this connection, it should be stated that the New Testament writings everywhere accord with the renderings referred to, of the Septuagint. The act of dipping is invariably expressed by bapto, or its derivative, baptizo. The act of sprinkling is rendered by rhantizo, to sprinkle. To pour, by cheo. To wash the body is expressed by louo. Nipto is used to express the washing of parts of the body, and pluno (Rev. 7:14) expresses the act of washing clothes or garments. What a combination of evidence, within the sphere, too, of Bible proofs, accumulate as our subject is fairly investigated. As it respects the sacred rite, God's word accepts the one only mode as Gospel baptism.

As a matter of interest, and which adds no little to what proofs I have already adduced, I wish to state that I have before me, on my desk, a Hebrew New Testament, "published for the London Society, at the Operative Institution," etc., London. The edition displays much learning. It was evidently published in the interests of Christianity and scholarship. The translation is admirable, so far as I can judge. I have looked through it carefully, and studiously, and find, as it respects the subject we are treating, that the Septuagint method and renderings are followed, i. e., the corresponding words in the Greek and Hebrew are scholarly arranged. In every instance where baptizo or bapto occur in the Greek New Testament, the rendering into the Hebrew is by tabal; there is no exception in the entire book. So also as it respects the Greek rhantizo, it is rendered by the Hebrew zaraq, to sprinkle. The Greek louo (Latin, lavo, English, wash) is rendered by ra hhats, to wash the body or bathe. The Greek cheo and ekcheo are expressed by the Hebrew shapak, to pour, to pour out; so used also often in the Hebrew Bible. How will our Pedobaptist scholarship account for these renderings in our Hebrew New Testament? Only as it can account for the like renderings of the Seventy. I wonder how Dr. Young would account for these renderings? He says tabal means "to moisten, to besprinkle," but all the evidences I have accumulated condemn him.

Much has been said in favor of the "Analytical Concordance," and on the whole it deserves much praise; but it has serious defects, and so egregious an assumption in the rendering of the Hebrew word tabal cannot be endorsed without earnest and scholarly rebuke.—J. B. Tombes, in Herald of Truth.