name of the Lord, his God, and putting his hand on the diseased place, that it might draw together and be healed. Contrary to his expectation, Elisha did not even come down to him, when he stood at the door of his house, but sent by his servant this prescription, "Go and wash seven times at the Jordan, and thy flesh will return upon thee, and thou wilt be healed." Disappointed and indignant at the contempt with which he imagined he had been treated, and at the preference which he thought was given to the natural virtue of Jewish waters, he resolved to return to his own land, that if he washed any where for his leprosy, it might be at Abana and Pharpar rivers of Damascus. But on the sensible and affectionate remonstrance of his servants, who reminded him how simple was the prophet's command-to wash that he might be healed, he changed his purpose, and according to the direction of the man of God, he baptized himself. Now what is it likely that he did? and how is his action described? To reply to these questions it is proper to ascertain what was the washing required by the Mosaic law in cases of leprosy; since this would determine the common practice, and the law and the practice together, would probably determine the action of Naaman; and the language both of the historian and of the translator. The law is given Lev. xiv. 7. "And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean.... And he that is to be cleansed, shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean." This law consists of two parts, the first is ceremonial, the second is sanatory. The sprinkling seven times was the testimony given by the priest to the lepers cure, and re-admitted him to his social and religious privileges. The subsequent washing and shaving were designed to remove the danger of infection. Now as the cure was in this case miraculous and complete, it is more likely that the prophet, in his direction, would refer to what was ceremonial in the law, than to what was sanatory; and that when he told the Syrian to wash seven times, he alluded to the seven sprinklings, which were usually received by the leper, rather than to the two washings and shavings of the whole person, which, with the interval of a week, were afterwards attended to. But if it be supposed that it was to the latter that he referred, and that his direction corresponded to this part of the Mosaic law, then it is certain that the law did not enjoin dipping, and it is most improbable that not being required it should be generally practised. It is not impossible that Naaman dipped himself seven times in the river, but it is improbable, for the following reasons:-First. He was only required * The words y! and Aouw used here, and in all similar passages, denote the act of cleansing, without any regard to the manner in which it is done. Vide, Gen. xliii. 31; Exod. xxx. 18; Deut. xxi. 6; 2 Chron. iv. 6; Ps. xxvi. 6; Prov. xxx. 12; Isa. i. 16; iv. 4; Ps. vi. 6; Acts, xvi. 33; Rev. i. 8. to wash, and this term is twice repeated afterwards. Second. What he was to do is represented as a small thing. Third. His temper of mind was not that which would lead him to do more than was enjoined; and Fourth. His action is stated to have been in accordance with the prophet's command. But whatever may have been the mode in which Naaman obeyed the prophet's order, that his action is not described as a dipping is evident, from these considerations. 1. If so common a signification was to be expressed, Bánтw, or some common word might be expected, and not a word whose rare occurrence indicates that it already had some peculiarity of meaning, like what it is found to have possessed afterwards. 2. There is nothing to show that dipping was in the thoughts of the writer, for there is no word in the context, and nothing in the scope of the passage, having the least relation thereto. On the contrary, while apart from the supposed signification of the word itself, there is nothing to lead to the supposition that Naaman was dipped, we know that he was cleansed. The action, however performed, was a purification; and that it is presented by the historian, under this aspect is probable, because, 1st, it is three times referred to under this aspect as a washing, the end being expressed and not the mode; 2d, the cure is described immediately after, by a term denoting both purity and health (kai éκabapioon.) 3. On this occasion Naaman became a worshipper of Jehovah, and the historian relates his conversion to the Jewish faith. It is natural to suppose that the employment here of the word Barrio, as well as that of the corresponding Hebrew term, was occasioned by the use of these words for the more solemn purifications with water, then observed by the Jews. If now we look to the words of other languages, most likely to exhibit the sense of Barrio in this passage, we find the following. In the Hebrew text. This word denotes in the earlier Hebrew to dip, to stain, to moisten.* Its meaning in the later Hebrew cannot be ascertained but by the considerations adduced, which are equally applicable to the Hebrew and Greek words in this passage. In the Chaldee Targum the same word 2 is put both for the precept and the performance, for 7 and 2. It denotes both to dip and to purify; and that it is used here in the latter sense is the most probable, because Pis never translated by a word signifying to dip, but often, when used in reference to sacred things, by to purify. In the Syriac version, to wash or cleanse is likewise put for both words, * Gen. xxxvii. 31. "They stained the coat with the blood." Lev. iv. 17. “ And the priest shall moisten his finger from the blood." Lev. xiv. 16. "And the priest shall moisten his right finger from the oil that is in his left hand." 2 Kings, viii. 15. "He took a coverlet and moistened it with water, and spread it on his face, so that he died." showing, that in the judgment of the translator of that ancient version, both meant to cleanse or purify. In the Vulgate in the same manner, one word is employed, the direction given to Naaman is expressed by "lavare septies in Jordane"-wash seven times at the Jordan; his obedience, by "lavit in Jordane septies," he washed seven times at the Jordan. Whether these translators used only the Hebrew text, or not, is immaterial. It is most likely that they would understand the Hebrew in the same manner as the writer of this part of the Septuagint, and that as they gave in their several translations, the sense of purifying, expressing the end and not the mode of the action, so he also employed βαπτίζω in this signification. From this examination of the context, subject, scope, and ancient versions, it appears very improbable that Naaman was dipped, and very improbable, if he were purified by dipping, that the historian should describe this fact by a word expressive of its manner, rather than of its design. On the other hand it is certain that he purified himself, and the circumstances of the case favour the supposition that his purification was like all the public ceremonial purifications of the Jews, by sprinkling or washing a part of the person. The whole context of the passage, and the testimony of the ancient versions, supports the opinion that here Banrico means to purify, and that it was appropriated to sacred rites performed with water. For the supposition that Naaman dipped himself, and that here Barrio means to dip, we have only the supposed radical signification of the Hebrew and Greek words. For the supposition that Naaman partially washed himself, and that Barrisw here means to purify, expressing the end and not the mode of washing, we have the general considerations adduced in the last article, the accordance of this mode and meaning, with the common feelings of men, with Jewish customs, with the prophet's command, with the servant's language, with the historian's comment and subsequent statements, probably with the Chaldee Targum, certainly with the Syriac and Latin versions. II. The only other passage in which Banτíw is found in the Old Testament is Isa. xxi. 4, where, in our translation, we read, "my heart panted, fearfulness affrighted me." The Hebrew for the last clause is na, rendered by the Septuagint dropia pe Barriget, by the Vulgate, "tenebræ me stupefecerunt." The meaning of this passage given by most commentators is, "horror has seized or oppressed me." In the Septuagint, according to Schleusner, dvouía has the sense of terror as well as of iniquity, and is used in the former sense in this place. The word Barrige then expresses the effect produced upon the mind by very dreadful apprehension. There is no reference to dipping, nothing even to suggest the idea; but its common classic sense when applied to mind, to press down, or overwhelm, is exactly suited to it; all the evidence coincides with this conclusion. That Barrigw, though it had in the Hebraistic Greek another meaning, should be once used by a translator in its ordinary classic sense, is what might be expected. This is the more likely to be the case here, inasmuch as the subject to which the word applies, is exactly that to which it is ordinarily applied in the classics-grievous and excessive oppression; and its use here is remote from the influence of any modes of thought or expression peculiar to Jews. III. In the Apocrypha the word occurs twice: first, in Judith xii. 7, "And she went out every night to the valley of Bethulia, and baptized herself at the fountain of water which was in the camp.' .”* We ask what did she do at the fountain? and how is her conduct described? A Jewish matron of great beauty and intelligence, of a devout and resolute spirit, left the city of Bethulia, when it was besieged by the Assyrian army, and went to the enemy's camp. She was introduced to the general, professedly with the view of aiding him in taking her native city, but really with the intention of imitating the example of Jael, and freeing her country from its destroyer, by a woman's hand. She prepared herself most carefully for this hazardous undertaking, and went forth attended only by one maid servant. After her interview with Holofernes she remained for three days in a tent assigned to her, living on the food which she had brought with her, that she might not be defiled by the unlawful food of the heathen. She asked and obtained permission to go out from her tent to pray in the morning watch. For this purpose she went out before dawn of day to the valley of Bethulia, and baptized herself at the fountain which was in the camp. She then prayed to the God of Israel that he would direct her way to effect the deliverance of his people, and, coming back to her tent purified (kaðapá,) she remained in it until the evening. Such is the narrative of the historian. We learn from it that baptism was something that a lady, accompanied by a maid servant, might perform at a fountain in a camp of soldiers. It was something that a Jewish lady would wish to perform who was desirous of avoiding any ceremonial impurity, and who was earnestly praying for strength and success in an affair, which, whether right or wrong, she deemed patriotic, virtuous, and pious. If we suppose that she washed her hands at the fountain, or was sprinkled with water, the fact will then accord with the nature and situation of the place, with a woman's feelings, and with Jewish rites. The custom of washing the hands or sprinkling the person with pure water, was one common both among the Jews and other nations. Aristeas says, it is the custom of all the Jews to wash their hands in the sea when they pray to God;† sea * Καὶ ἐβαπτίζετο ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ ἐπὶ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος. † Ἔθος ἐστὶ πᾶσι τοῖς Ιουδαίοις ἀπονιψαμένοις τῇ θαλάσσῃ τὰς χεῖρας ὡς ἂν εὔξαιτο πрòs τdν 0e6v.—Hist. lxxii. Spencer p. 696. Philo says, "It is the custom of nearly all others to sprinkle themselves for purification with pure water; many with that of the sea, some with that of rivers, and some with that which in vessels they have drawn up from wells."-De Sacrificantibus. water was thought most purifying; then that of rivers, and of fountains. Clemens Alexandrinus, having referred to the custom of the Gentiles to wash their hands before prayer, says, that "The Jews also had this same custom, and were often baptized in bed."* Here we have clear and decisive testimony to the use of such purifications before prayer, and to their being styled baptisms, when administered to a sick person in bed. The same practice is probably alluded to by St. Paul, when he speaks of men praying and lifting up holy hands, i Tim. 2, 8. This custom is indisputable. On the contrary, it cannot be shown that it was a Jewish custom to dip the whole person in water before prayer, even when it could be conveniently done. If we imagine that Judith was immersed in water, we assume what is highly improbable, physically, morally, and ceremonially. It is physically improbable, because it is not likely that the fountain would admit of an immersion, few being sufficiently deep. It is morally. imbrobable, because it is most unlikely that any one should dip himself dressed or undressed into cold water in the night to prepare for devotion; and it is still more unlikely that a lady would act thus when near to a large number of men, who, though they had been forbidden to hinder, had not been forbidden to watch her. And it is ceremonially improbable, since nothing of this kind was ever enjoined by the Jewish law, and nothing parrallel to this can be adduced as ever practised by the Jewish people. If she did not dip herself into the water, or immerse herself in it, then the word Banτiw cannot mean here, to dip or to immerse. Exactly in the same degree in which it is improbable that the pure and high-minded Jewish lady was dipped at night in the cold water of a fountain, when there were thousands of heathen men close by, in this degree is it improbable that to baptize here means to dip or immerse. If still it should be asserted, that she did dip herself, this will not prove, that to dip is the sense of the word. There is nothing in the context to give the least support to such an interpretation. * Τηλέμαχος δὲ Χεῖρας νιψάμενος πολιῆς ἁλὸς εὔχετ ̓ ̓Αθήνῃ. On the Εθος τοῦτο Ἰουδαίων ὡς καὶ πολλάκις ἐπὶ κοίτῃ βαπτίζεσθαι.—Strom. Lib. iv. p. 531. Many other illustrations of this practice are given by Spencer.-De Leg. Heb. Πρὶν γ' εὔξῃ ἰδὼν εἰς καλὰ ῥέεθρα Χεῖρας νιψάμενος.—Hesiod. Dic corpus properet fluviali spargere lymphâ.-Æneid Lib. v. Idem ter socios purâ circumtulit undâ Spargens rore levi, et ramo felicis olivæ.—Lib. vi. Tu conversus ad aras Dic quater et vivo perlue rore manus.-Ovid Fas. iv. Spargit et ipse suos lauro rorante capillos Incipit et solitâ fundere voce preces.—Fas. v. |
