KJB Word BAPTISM -- a CATHOLIC CONSPIRACY?

    

According to a flyer from Pilgrim's Publications, Thomas H. Wyckoff wrote a tract, during the mid 1800's, entitled "Baptize and Immerse." The Flyer cities Wyckof and insists upon a diabolical conspiracy, a Roman Catholic plot, in which the Papists "conceal" the mode of baptism (immersion) by transliterating the Greek word (baptizo) into Latin in Jerome's Latin, 4th century, Catholic Vulgate bible in order to obscure the meaning of the Greek word. The resulting transliterated Latin supposedly was infiltrated into the English language and subsequent English Bibles (as baptism and derivatives).

In another flyer from the same Pilgrim’s Publications, the Council of Trent (1543-63) and the Rheims bible (1582) is blamed for the word "baptize" in our English Bibles. Unfortunately, 1546 is a trifle late and 1582 is completely out of the ball park for the Catholics to pull of such a caper, since Wycliffe's Bible (1380), Tyndale's Bible (1525), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Bible (1560), and The Bishop's Bible (1568) already used the word "baptize" before these Catholic developments.

Wycliffe and Tyndale put the word "baptize" into our English Bible (from Latin and Greek) before the Papists ever had or wanted a Bible in the English language (judging from the Roman Catholic reaction to Wycliffe and Tyndale). Still, this fantasy is an improvement over the former older wives' tale that blames the 1611 KJB Anglicans as the conspirators in the grand cover-up scheme to conceal the correct mode of baptism by immersion. In the same flyer, a Vatican painting by Raphael (1483-1520) is cited as proof that the baptism of Constantine (271-337) by Pope Sylvester was by "sprinkling" or by "pouring" (painted from an old photo or did Raphael have a camera?). Raphael was also well known for his Madonna painting and the painting with the two death angels leaning on a coffin (presently adorning postage stamps and many Christian homes). Do you think latter century Papist paintings of our Lord's baptism also establish His baptismal mode? You know, John the Baptist with his little sea shell, waste deep in water--sprinkling.

 

Immersion and Constantine?

According to Orchard's "A Concise History of the Baptists (page 38)," regarding Constantine (271-337), "Till the time of Sylvester, the Christians had baptized either in private baths, or in subterranean waters, or in a place without the city. The emperor Constantine gave Bishop Sylvester the imperial mansion for a sort of parsonage house: and here was erected the first artificial baptistery in Rome. From this period . . . all their catechumens went to be baptized at the Lateran baptistery . . . there existed an harmony among the churches, on the mode and subject of baptism . . . (Ibid. p. 38).” Orchard says again, "He (Constantine) gave Bishop Sylvester his mansion, for a baptistery . . . Places were erected for baptizing, some over running water, while others were supplied by pipes. In the middle of the building was the bath, which was very large (Ibid. p. 57)."

  

Immersion After Constantine?

There is no reason to believe that the early churches disputed the proper mode of baptism, Latin or no Latin. After Constantine's death, Bishop Chrystostom said "to be baptized and plunged into the water, and then to emerge or rise out of it again, is a symbol of our descent into the grave, and of our ascent out of it; and therefore, Paul calls baptism a burial, when he says we are buried with him (Ibid p. 42)."

    

Immersions in Italy?

"Baptisteries were erected in Italy as late as the fourteenth century, while immersion continued in the Cathedral of Milan till the close of the eighteenth century.", according to John T. Christian in his "History of the Baptists" -- p. 36.

  

Immersions in England and Germany

John T. Christian also says (Ibid. p. 38), "For the first thirteen centuries immersion was the normal practice of the Christian world. 'Baptism by immersion,' says Doellinger, 'continued to be the prevailing practice of the Church as late as the fourteenth century' (Doellinger, The History of the Church, II. 294. London, 1840-42).

 

Immersion was practiced in some parts of Germany in the sixteenth century. In England, immersion was the practice for sixteen hundred years. Immersion was the universal rule of baptism in the reign of Henry VIII. There are two elaborate rituals of the Church of England at this period . . . Both of these liturgies enforce immersion. Erasmus, writing from England in 1532, gives the English practice.’ He says: 'We dip children all over in cold water, in a stone font.' Every English monarch of the sixteenth century was immersed. Henry VIII and his elder brother Arthur, Elizabeth in 1533, and Edward VI in 1537 were all immersed (Ibid. p. 194).”

“The practice of immersion was universal in the reign of Henry VIII. It was the form of baptism of all parties and there is no known testimony to the contrary. The Church of England practiced immersion. The Catholics practiced immersion. The Baptists practiced immersion." (Ibid p. 196)

"He (Crosby) says in speaking of the opinion of Wycliff: 'I shall only further observe that the practice of immersion or dipping in baptism, continued in the church until the reign of James I or about the year 1600.' 'Yet,' he further says, 'there were some who were unwilling to part with this laudable and ancient practice' (II.lii). He quotes with great approval Sir John Floyer, who says: 'The age which has practised sprinkling in England began 1644, and to the present are 77 years' (Floyer, An Essay to Restore Dipping of Infants, 61. London, 1722). Once more Floyer says: 'Dr. Lightfoot wrote about 1644, near the time that sprinkling was introduced' (Ibid. p. 33). Such is the testimony to the existence of Baptists in England." (Ibid p. 173)

 

The Older Latin Vulgate

Bible Correctors usually put all their conspiratorial eggs in the 4th century, Jerome, Latin Vulgate basket. Boy, are they going to be surprised, when they discover that the older Latin Bible was read and preached by the persecuted Christians. The "Old" Latin Bible, which Jerome was ordered to revise, uses words like "baptista, baptizabantur, and baptismum." The Old Latin Bible predated Constantine, Sylvester, Jerome and his Vulgate, the Rheims bible, and the Council of Trent, all of which have been implicated by Pilgrims Publications as a Roman Catholic, "baptism by sprinkling," scheme and being responsible for the word "baptism" occurring in later English Bibles?

  

The History of the Word "Immerse"

According to the Oxford English dictionary, 2nd edition, volume 7, page 684, the first recorded usage of the word "immerse" was a "figurative" (OED) usage of the word by Francis Bacon in 1605. According to the OED, the word then meant to enter, involve, enclose, include; to merge, to sink. Such usage is now obsolete, according to the OED. "Other formes . . . are more immersed in matter."

The first recorded instance of the word being used in the sense of being dipped or plunged, according to the OED, was in “Cawdrey's Table Alphabetical of Hard Words" edition 3, 1613. Because it was a table of hard words should make us aware of the scarcity of the word's usage. Still, the Bible Corrector’s biggest objection is the OED using the 3rd edition of Cawdry's Table of 1613, since Cawdry died in 1604. Yet, despite this Bible corrector’s objections, upon being challenged, he could not produce or document the word, before 1613, in a first or second editions or anywhere else.

The Oxford English Dictionary cites the 1613 edition of the book because "immerse" could not be found before 1613 and was NOT included in the first or second editions of the book. Part of the OED's plan (which originally took around 70 years to be completed) was to cite the earliest recorded usage of each word, which it defines. After more than a century of work by linguists and philologists, NO one has found a single recorded English instance of the word "immerse" that predates Bacon, whose non-religious use of the word does not have the same meaning as the later meaning of the word. The EARLIEST instance of meaning is 1613. Albeit, in 1613, "immerse" is not used in conjunction with Christian baptism.

 

Conclusion

The 1611 King James Translators never had the word "immerse" available to them in any sense of the English people's understanding. The earliest recorded English occurrence of the word "immersion," that we can find, in conjunction with Christian baptism, is in 1629, according to the Oxford English Dictionary under "immersion."

The word "immerse" (and derivatives) is an inferior substitute for "baptize" in the King James Bible. To make it acceptable, it also would have to be complimented by the word emerge. For when you are immersed in the water, you also must emerge to define baptism completely. Immersing portrays the death and burial, emerging portrays the resurrection. The word "Baptize" portrays both.

Some ancestor Baptists wrongly argued the matter of baptism, conspiratorially, in order to defend and preserve the scriptural mode of baptism, which was threatened by the large scale Catholic and Protestant influx of sprinkling. Yet, modern contemporary Baptists, unhappy with the success of the King James only position, picked up on these old arguments for an entirely different reason. Their design is to destroy Baptist confidence in the 1611 King James Bible via the word "baptize." Strange that they do not zero in on all the other modern translations, which also all use the same word "baptize." Not so strange when you consider that these bibles are not the targets. The target is number one, the 1611 KJB (with almost a fanatical zeal to correct it and/or obsolete it).

English is a composite language made up of hundreds of transliterated words Greek, German, Norman, Saxon, French, Latin, and so forth. Such facts do little to convince us to embrace the imagined black helicopter Catholic conspiracy propagated by fanatical left wing Baptist Bible Correctors.

-- by Herb Evans