« FöregåendeFortsätt »
to have affected their translation in almost every passage, on which it could be supposed, in the most distant manner, to bear.
On Dr. C's censure of good and learned men, for allowing their judgment to be warped, being true partizans, and inclining to correct the diction of the Spirit, by that of the party; it is fair to ask, whether consistency, or inconsistency, be the just ground of accusation? No doubt, good and learned men may be bigots. On the other hand, men, who practise one thing, and say they believe another, may perhaps be free from bigotry; but are they free from blame? In a work to which he had prefixed the high-toned, and excellent motto, Μονη θυτέον αληθεια, ,
we must sacrifice to truth alone,” Dr. C. declared the diction of the Spirit to signify that Baptism was immersion, yet, to the end of his life, he administered Baptism in a different way. Was not this “ correcting the diction of the Spirit (according to his acknowledged view of it) by that of the party?” A man, who could act in this manner, will not satisfy a serious inquirer, that his mind was, on the point in question, drawn to the Holy Scriptures, with sufficient intenseness to give the hope, that, through the blessing of God, he should be enabled to discuss it with his usual accuracy
Dr. CAMPBELL, ON MARK vii. 3, 4. I proceed next to the consideration of Dr. C.'s translation of Mark vii. 3, 4. and of his two notes in
defence of it. The translation is, “For the Pharisees, and indeed all the Jews, observing the tradition of the elders, eat not until they have washed their hands, by pouring a little water upon them; and if they be come from the market, by dipping them; and many other
usages there are which they have adopted, as baptisms of cups and pots, and brazen vessels and beds."
For his translation of Matth. iii. 11, Dr. C. had some countenance from ancient versions; and from some popish translators, and one protestant, among the moderns. But for the translation, which he here proposes, of Mark vii. 3, 4, he can plead no precedent, ancient or modern, scriptural or classical.
There is an obscurity about the first clause of the 3d verse, which it is not necessary at present to discuss at large. Those who think tuy the genuine reading, usually understand by it, a washing of the hands, by rubbing water on the palm of the one hand with the doubled fist of the other. I have tried this awkward operation, and I must say, I succeed far better with the open palms of both hands. For aught I can see, the reading followed by our translators is, upon the whole, the best. And I would read the passage thus, “For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And even when they have come from a market, unless they baptize, they eat not: and many other things there are which they have received to hold, as baptisms of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and beds,” xal ånd å yogãs, ide unt βαπτίσωνται-βαπτισμούς ποτηρίων, κ. τ. λ.*
As far as I have observed, there is only one mode of washing either the hands or the feet, in scripture, and that is, by pouring water upon them, and rubbing them as the water flows. 2 Kings iii. 11. “ Here is Elisha, the son of Shaphat, who POURED water on the hands of Elijah.” In like manner, as to the feet, Gen. xviii. 4. “ Let a LITTLE WATER, I pray you, be fetched and wash
feet.” That this water was to be poured upon the feet, we may learn from Luke vii. 44. “ Thou gavest me no water upon my feet." ύδωρ Επι τους πόδας μου ουκ έδωκας: but she hath washed or wetted, literally, RAINED UPON, my
feet with tears, raig dánguos "EBPEXE' HOU Tous sodas. It seems to have been in the same way that Jesus washed his disciples' feet, John xiii; there is no hint, that he dipped their feet in the basin. ewer rather than a basin. It was filled once only, for washing the feet of all the twelve. And Peter supposed his Master sufficiently provided with the water of that ewer to have washed not his feet only, but also his hands and his head. It was in this way only that one filling of the vintng, the washing vesa sel, could be sufficient for washing the feet of twelve
It was a
• Some copies, instead of BerríowyTai, read partioWrTad, sprinkle," which, though not a term exactly equivalent to BarriOWYtai, may be considered as a proof that the transcriber with whom this various reading originated, did not understand that there was any immersion in the passage,
persons. It is a method of washing which has no doubt arisen from the scarcity and value of water in most parts of those warm countries.
The pouring appears to have been by no means copious; barely sufficient to wet the surface to be washed ; requiring no vessel to receive what must have run off from a copious perfusion; but, after being rubbed on, to be only wiped off with a towel.
The numerous instances of washing, which occur in the writings of Homer, are, without a single exception, of a similar description. The manner, in which he describes Vulcan, as washing his face, and hands, and neck, and breast, with a spunge, is, though not exactly the same, yet clearly analogous.
Σπόγγω δ' αμφί πρόσωπα, και άμφω χείς, απομόργου,
'ΙΛ. Σ 414, 415.
Then, all around with a wet sponge he wip'd
Cowper, Iliad sviii. 507-509.
The other instances are much closer. When the terms of the combat between Paris and Menelaus are about to be solemnly adjusted by Agamemnon and Priam, the poet says,
ατάρ κήρυκες αγανοί, ,
'IA. r. 268_270.
Then the heralds rang'd
Iliad iii. 298-300.
In like manner, when Nestor advises sending Ulysses, Phænix, and Ajax, to the tent of Achilles with proposals of reconciliation, he says;
Αυσίκα κήρυκες μεν ύδωρ 'Επι' χείρας "ΕΧΕΥΑΝ.
'ΙΛ. Ι. 171-174.
Now bring water for our hands;
-The herald's POUR'D
Iliad ix. 206-210.
A more particular description of washing the hands, as a religious rite, occurs in the account of Priam's preparing to go to the tent of Achilles,
Η ρα, και αμφίπολον ταμίην ώτρυν' ο γεραιός
ΙΛ. Ω'. 302-307.
So saying, he bade the maiden, chief of all