Page 196 - Demo

192Scriptures is iniquitous and criminal, for the errorcaused 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 “aīmād” 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” –“Ī baptize.” The Arabic versions of the New Testament have adopted the Aramaic form, and call the Baptist “alMā ،midān,” and “ma ،mudiyeh” for “baptism.” In all the Semitic languages, including the Arabic, the verb “a ،mad” signifies in its simple or qal form “tostand 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” inits Greek form, but that there was evidently another Semitic nomenclature used by them.(b)Considering the classicalsignification oftheGreek “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 otherswere the followers of John. The very name “Sabians,”