Poll: Modes of Baptism

[Neto]

Translating baptise as “be drowned” would seem to be a very strange translation indeed

Ironically, I still have a mental picture of myself, as a child, drowned and dead, drifting along under the water, arms and legs outstretched, turning slowly in the deep. That was what I thought it was as a very young child - literal death by drowning.

[gcdonner]

Translating baptise as “be drowned” would seem to be a very strange translation indeed

Not really if according to Paul, "...we are buried with him by baptism into death..." (Romans 6:4)

[Neto]

Translating baptise as “be drowned” would seem to be a very strange translation indeed

Not really if according to Paul, "...we are buried with him by baptism into death..." (Romans 6:4)

I think that if it were an intransitive verb, or perhaps even a Passive, it would not seem so... What? Shocking? as it does as a transitive verb, where the pastor says "I now drown you to death in the Name..."
But I DO believe that baptism (obviously not the rite itself, but what is behind it) is something that GOD does. It is only He who can affect this result that we die, and then are risen, passing through death into life.

[barnhart]

Delete: post made in error.

[JimFoxvog]

Translating baptise as “be drowned” would seem to be a very strange translation indeed

But analogous to being crucified with Christ.

[Ernie]

Mark 7:3-4
(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, keeping the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they have washed. And there are many other customs they have received and keep, like the washing of cups, pitchers, kettles, and dining couches.)

For those of you who believe that the Greek word βαπτίσωνται means submerse or immerse, is it your understanding that the dining couches (being referenced here in Mark) got submersed or immersed in water?

[Sudsy]

Mark 7:3-4
(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, keeping the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they have washed. And there are many other customs they have received and keep, like the washing of cups, pitchers, kettles, and dining couches.)

For those of you who believe that the Greek word βαπτίσωνται means submerse or immerse, is it your understanding that the dining couches (being referenced here in Mark) got submersed or immersed in water?

I find it interesting how these bible versions do not use 'dining couches' - NIV, NLT, NASB, LSB, AMP, ASV, CEV and ERV.

[Josh]

κλινῶν could mean “bed” or “table”; presumably people don’t eat on their beds, and the term was in common use to mean a lounge type of chair to recline on when eating.

If you take it to mean “table” then I would ask if you think they fully immerse their dining room table before eating.

Here are the NET’s notes regarding some translations which omit it:

Several important witnesses (Ì45vid א B L Δ 28* pc) lack “and dining couches” (καὶ κλινῶν, kai klinwn), while the majority of mss (A D W Θ Ë1,13 33 Ï latt) have the reading. Although normally the shorter reading is to be preferred, especially when it is backed by excellent witnesses as in this case, there are some good reasons to consider καὶ κλινῶν as authentic: (1) Although the addition of κλινῶν could be seen as motivated by a general assimilation to the purity regulations in Lev 15 (as some have argued), there are three problems with such a supposition: (a) the word κλίνη (klinh) does not occur in the LXX of Lev 15; (b) nowhere in Lev 15 is the furniture washed or sprinkled; and (c) the context of Lev 15 is about sexual impurity, while the most recent evidence suggests that κλίνη in Mark 7:4, in keeping with the other terms used here, refers to a dining couch (cf. BDAG 549 s.v. κλίνη 2). Thus, it is difficult to see καὶ κλινῶν as a motivated reading. (2) κλίνη, though a relatively rare term in the NT, is in keeping with Markan usage (cf. Mark 4:21; 7:30). (3) The phrase could have been dropped accidentally, at least in some cases, via homoioteleuton. (4) The phrase may have been deliberately expunged by some scribes who thought the imagery of washing a dining couch quite odd. The longer reading, in this case, can thus be argued as the harder reading. On balance, even though a decision is difficult (especially because of the weighty external evidence for the shorter reading), it is preferable to retain καὶ κλινῶν in the text.

[Sudsy]

One of the arguments I have heard against immersion and using the Romans 6:4 text as support, is that being buried in those days was not being covered completely with dirt but rather being placed in a tomb as Jesus was. However, one could point out that Jesus body was totally wrapped or covered and laid to rest in this tomb. So, totally immersed, in my thinking, means He was totally covered whether it be in dirt or the grave clothes that He was freed from. The grave clothes could not hold Him anymore than being buried in dirt.

Although I think immersion best represents a picture of dying to sin, being put away and then breaking the bonds of death and rising to new life, I don't regard it as a saving issue and so mode, to me, is more a choice. I believe it is a public testimony so I think it is important as to what one is demonstrating regarding their salvation by this act. What does sprinkling, pouring or immersing convey to those watching. What is the main point of salvation that one is picturing by this act. Myself, proclaiming my salvation is best demonstrated by immersion.

For some the picture they are presenting is this act is required for them to qualify to become an official member of a local church. There was no preceding born again experience but they were following the rules on what they need to do to be a member. One can argue mode 'til the cows come home' as many have and will likely continue to debate but I believe the real issue is whether we died to sin and been raised in newness to life first prior to our baptism demonstration.

[Neto]

Mark 7:3-4
(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, keeping the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they have washed. And there are many other customs they have received and keep, like the washing of cups, pitchers, kettles, and dining couches.)

For those of you who believe that the Greek word βαπτίσωνται means submerse or immerse, is it your understanding that the dining couches (being referenced here in Mark) got submersed or immersed in water?

κλινῶν could mean “bed” or “table”; presumably people don’t eat on their beds, and the term was in common use to mean a lounge type of chair to recline on when eating.

If you take it to mean “table” then I would ask if you think they fully immerse their dining room table before eating.

Here are the NET’s notes regarding some translations which omit it:

Several important witnesses (Ì45vid א B L Δ 28* pc) lack “and dining couches” (καὶ κλινῶν, kai klinwn), while the majority of mss (A D W Θ Ë1,13 33 Ï latt) have the reading. Although normally the shorter reading is to be preferred, especially when it is backed by excellent witnesses as in this case, there are some good reasons to consider καὶ κλινῶν as authentic: (1) Although the addition of κλινῶν could be seen as motivated by a general assimilation to the purity regulations in Lev 15 (as some have argued), there are three problems with such a supposition: (a) the word κλίνη (klinh) does not occur in the LXX of Lev 15; (b) nowhere in Lev 15 is the furniture washed or sprinkled; and (c) the context of Lev 15 is about sexual impurity, while the most recent evidence suggests that κλίνη in Mark 7:4, in keeping with the other terms used here, refers to a dining couch (cf. BDAG 549 s.v. κλίνη 2). Thus, it is difficult to see καὶ κλινῶν as a motivated reading. (2) κλίνη, though a relatively rare term in the NT, is in keeping with Markan usage (cf. Mark 4:21; 7:30). (3) The phrase could have been dropped accidentally, at least in some cases, via homoioteleuton. (4) The phrase may have been deliberately expunged by some scribes who thought the imagery of washing a dining couch quite odd. The longer reading, in this case, can thus be argued as the harder reading. On balance, even though a decision is difficult (especially because of the weighty external evidence for the shorter reading), it is preferable to retain καὶ κλινῶν in the text.

I find this very intriguing, and now I’m curious as to if there are similar textual questions in cross references in the other Gospels, and if so, if the same words are used in those places. (I must rush back to work, so do not have time to look at it myself, now.)

The only Gospel I translated was Luke, so I didn’t encounter this particular textual problem. I’ll just say that although it is rare for the Greek text I used (Nestle-Aland, as I recall) to leave out a phrase that is found in early manuscripts (as in this case), and also considering the reasoning given in the NET notes, I am surprised that these words are omitted. I should also explain that the reasons to include it as per the NET note Josh provided are following one of the most stressed rules for textual criticism – that the most difficult reading must be given serious consideration, because it is much more likely that a scribe will leave out difficult wording than to add it. (The same is the case in rules of interpretation – the most difficult interpretation deserves extra consideration., or weight) It may be that the perceived “dissonance” between ‘baptize’ and ‘dining couch’ was the reason for excluding the words. However, my interlinear (all I have time to look at in the time I have now) glosses ‘batismous’ as ‘washings’. Similar renderings for different forms of ‘bapitdzo’ are glossed and translated as ‘washing’ in texts such as the one where a Pharisee got on Jesus’ case for skipping the ceremonial hand washing before sitting down to a meal.