Page 193 - New English Book L

192

Scriptures is iniquitous and criminal, for the error caused
in this respect is irreparable and pernicious. Now the
baptism of John and Jesus (pbuh) is plainly described and
illustrated to us in the Gospels, and is entirely alien and
opposed to the baptism of the Churches.

We are not positively certain about the original
Hebrew of Aramaic word for the Greek baptism. The
Pshittha Version uses the word “ma’muditha” from the
verb “aimad” and “aa’mid,” which means “to stand up
like an a?muda” (a pillar or column), and its causative
form “aa?mid” “to erect, set up, establish, confirm” and
so on, but it has no signification of “to immerse, dip,
wash, sprinkle, bathe,” as the ecclesiastical baptism is
supposed to mean. The original Hebrew verbs “rahas”
“to bathe”, “tabhal” (read “taval”) “to dip, to immerse,”
might give the sense conveyed by the Greek word
“baptizo” –“I baptize.” The Arabic versions of the New
Testament have adopted the Aramaic form, and call the
Baptist “alMa?midan,” and “ma?mudiyeh” for “baptism.”
In all the Semitic languages, including the Arabic, the
verb “a?mad” signifies in its simple or qal form “to stand
erect like a pillar,” and does not contain the meaning of
washing or immersion; and therefore it could not be the
original word from which the Greek “baptismos” is the
translation. There is no necessary to argue that both John
and Jesus (pbuh) never heard of the word “baptismos” in its
Greek form, but that there was evidently another Semitic
nomenclature used by them.

(b) Considering the classical signification of the Greek
“baptismos” which means tincture, dye, and immersion,”
the word in use could not be other than “Saba,” and
the Arabic “Sabagha,” “to dye.” It is a well-known fact
that the Sabians, mentioned in the Quran and by the
early Christian Fathers –such as Epiphanus and others-
were the followers of John. The very name “Sabians,”