|
Drunk, Stupefied,
Hung-over, Sleep p 316 CLASSIC BAPTISM SECONDARY USE. There are some
things which exert over certain objects a definite and unvarying influence.
Whenever, therefore, baptizo is employed to denote the relation
between such agencies and their objects, it no longer expressed a merely
general influence, or one which, while receiving some coloring, still admits
a varied application; but gives development, in competent manner, to that
specific influence which belongs to the case in hand. The specific influence
exerted by water over a human being put within it is to drown. The specific
influence of wine, freely drunk, is to intoxicate. The specific influence of
an opiate is to stupefy. The specific symbol-influence of pure water, or sea
water, used in religious rites, is to purify. The rising sun does not more
surely, or more necessarily bring with it light, than this Greek word, in
such relations, bring with it the specific conceptions of induced drowning,
drunkenness, stupefaction, and purification... This usage
justifies...and enables us to employ specific terms, which definitely embody
the influence in question, as the most legitimate translation of the word,
used absolutely, or of a phrase with which it is in living union. Some
passages justifying this view will now be presented. SPECIFIC INFLUENCE
p 317 1. Whom having
de-mersed by the same drug. [(Conant’s translation) “And Satyrus
had a remnant of the drug, with which he had put Conops
to sleep. Of this, while serving us, he covertly pours a part into the last
cup which he brought to Panthia; and she rising
went into her bedchamber, and immediately fell asleep. But Leucippe had another chamber-servant; whom having WHELMED
(BAPTIZED) with the same drug, Satyrus...comes to
the third door, to the door-keeper; and him he laid prostrate with the same
draught.” ex. 163, pp 79-80. Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon, II.31.] P 318; (In this
example) four cases are here presented, with varying phraseology, in which
the work of stupefaction is accomplished by an opiate drug. Are these cases
all spoken of under the form of figure? Are some presented in figurative
dress, and some in literal attire? Or are all spoken of with a simple, prosaic
literality?...And Leucippe’s handmaid, by what
figure is she “whelmed” (Conant), or dipped as
Carson would insist?...Most persons will see, in this passage, a very
unembellished statement of the controlling influence of this drug; and
as it was soporific in its nature, always producing one definite effect, they
will recognize the propriety of translating the word (baptizo) which
represents this influence by the specific term - to stupefy. 2. You seem to
be mersed by unmixed wine. [(Conant’s translation) “You seem to me, O guests, to be
strangely flooded with vehement words, and WHELMED (BAPTIZED) with undiluted
wine. ex. 147, p 70. Athenaeus, Philosopher’s
Banquet, V. 64.] P 319; The
description of the wine which causes this mersion
as “unmixed” determines in the most absolute manner that no physical
“whelming” or “dipping” is in the mind of the writer. As it is of no
consequence to a drowned man whether it is salt water or fresh water that
drowns him, so it is of no consequence, in a physical mersion,
whether mixed or unmixed wine be used. But when the influence of wine, as an
intoxicating drink is in question, then it is a matter of prime importance
whether it is the one or the other. As Athenaeus
lays emphasis on the wine as without any mixture of water, he could only
intend to express its fullest intoxicating power. Unmixed wine, freely used
by convivialists, invariably produces one effect - makes drunk - therefore,
the word baptizo which embodies such intoxicating influence may, with
the highest propriety, be translated by the specific word expressive of
drunkenness. 3. Then, mersing powerfully, he set me free. [(Conant’s translation) “Then WHELMING (BAPTIZING)
potently, he set me free. ex. 150, p 72. Aristophon
(Athenaeus, Philosopher’s Banquet, IX. 44.)] P 319-20; (In this
example a slave-girl was given a drug, which she imbibed and was powerfully
drugged, she was baptized potently.) Dr. Conant,
in making baptizo express an “effect” becomes exposed to the charge of
treason to the (Baptist) cause, as brought by Dr. Carson. “Potently” is not a
proper qualifying term for dipping; nor for
whelming, or mersing, or baptizing in primary use.
The agency may be potent, but not the condition. (But) it is entirely proper
as characterizing the secondary use, expressive of controlling influence.
A specific translation here is more than justified (of being powerfully
drugged). 4. Having mersed Alexander by much wine. [(Conant’s translation) “And Thebe, learning the purpose
[of Alexander], gave daggers to the brothers and urged them to be ready for
the slaughter; and having WHELMED (BAPTIZED) Alexander with much wine and put
him to sleep, she sends out the guards of the bed-chamber, under the pretense
of taking a bath, and called the brothers to the deed. ex. 149, p 71. Conon, Narration L.] P 320; “Having
immersed Alexander in wine - that is, having made him drunk with wine” ( We thus see what
vital issues depend on the right determination of the value of baptizo.
Has it “but one meaning through all Greek literature - mode and nothing but
mode - to dip? (so Dr. Carson). Or is it devoid of
all modal action - demanding a condition of intusposition?
And does it, with parallelism to bapto, lay
aside this primary demand for intusposition, and
substitute for it a demand, only, for controlling influence, which attends
some phases of intusposition, as dyeing in some
cases of dipping?...Carson dips, plunges, immerses Alexander in wine, instead
of allowing him to be “influenced (made drunk) by wine.”...(Now
we come to the) Interpretation (by 7. Resembles
one heavyheaded and mersed. [(Conant’s translation) “When an old man drinks, and Silenus takes possession of him, immediately he is mute
for some time, and seems like one heavy-headed and WHELMED (BAPTIZED). ex.
148, p 71. Lucian, Bacchus, VII.] P 330; This passage
gives the clearest evidence for a secondary use and sense. Lucian is not
speaking of drinking from a wine-cup, but from the fountain of Silenus. He does not describe directly the effect of such
drinking, except as to its inducing “silence;” in other respects, he says the
drinker “resembles one heavy-headed and mersed.” In
this statement, baptizo is joined with a word which, in its literal,
primary meaning, expresses one of the features of wine-influence over the
system, - “heavy-headedness.” It is incredible that a reference to
intoxication would thus mix up together the literal and the figurative. If
“heavy-head” is literal, “mersed,” also is literal.
Again: We use for illustration things well known, to throw light on things
less known. “Heavy-headedness and mersion”
therefore must have been things well understood, as they are the illustrative
explanation of the influence exerted upon those drinking of the Silenic fount. Now these terms are used by Lucian to
express a state of intoxication. They must therefore have been in familiar
use, with such meaning. The language bears on its face evidence of well-worn,
every-day use. “Mersed” is used absolutely and as
self-explanatory...This phraseology proves every-day familiarity to the
popular lip and ear...We then have the case of a man not only baptized by a
fluid element, but at a fountain without any mersion
in it. What higher evidence we could have that the Greeks appropriated this
word to express as state of drunkenness, I do not know. 8. I myself am
of those mersed yesterday. [(Conant’s translation) “For I myself am one of those
who yesterday were OVERWHELMED (BAPTIZED). ex. 146, p 69-70. Plato, Banquet, ch. IV.] P 331; (I myself am
of those drunk yesterday.) Again, we have the absolute use of the word
without the slightest indication of a picture or a comparison. Language could
not be used more deeply stamped with the evidence of self-completeness. Yet
Dr. Carson says: “When baptizo is applied to drunkenness it is taken
figuratively; and the point of resemblance is between a man completely under
the influence of wine and an object completely subjected to a liquid in which
it is completely immersed” (p. 80). It is an error to say, “a man completely
under the influence of wine resembles an object completely immersed in
water.” Because, 1. There is nothing in the former case to which the envelopment
in the latter can be resembled. Wine does not exert its intoxicating
influence by the envelopment of its object. 2. Envelopment of an object in
water does not necessarily exert an influence over the immersed object. A
flint stone immersed in water experiences no influence from the enveloping
fluid. 3. When the object is of such a nature as to be influenced by such
position, as a man suffocated by encompassing water, there can be no
resemblance to such position; because a drunken man is in no analogous position.
The resemblance must be confined to the influence...Wine, in its fully
developed influence sways a complete and controlling influence over the
intellect and body, water sways a complete and controlling influence over a
living man immersed in it. There is no resemblance between the mode in which
the influence is exerted for there is no resemblance between drinking and
immersion...All resemblance might be expected to disappear, first, from the
form of utterance; then, from the conscious intellectual apprehension,
leaving behind only the abstract thought of controlling influence. The facts
of usage show that such was the case. An advanced step would give the word baptizo,
by frequent appropriation, a specific character. This seems to have been
done, as in this and other passages, by its identification with
wine-influence. “I was of those, yesterday, (baptized) - mersed
- made drunk.”... 10. Mersing out of great wine-jars,
drank to one another. (Baptizontes ek pithon megalon...proepinon.) [(Conant’s translation) “Thou wouldest
not have seen a buckler, or a helmet, or a pike, but the soldiers, along the
whole way, DIPPING (BAPTIZING) with cups, and horns, and goblets from the
great wine-jars and mixing-bowls, were drinking to one another. ex. 25, pp
11-12. Plutarch, Life of Alexander, LXVII (LVII?).] P 335; The
historian is speaking of the riotous march of Alexander’s army through a
region of abundance after the perils and sufferings of the homeward march
from their Eastern conquest...Dr. Conant mentions a
doubt expressed by Du Soul as to the correctness of
the reading, baptizontes, on the ground of
its construction with ek pithon. He (wrote), however, that the difficulty is
obviated by the suggestion of Coray, “a part of the
action is put for the whole, as one must dip the vessel in order to fill it.”
The difficulty...and explanation proceeds on the assumption that the word baptizo
signifies to dip, which is a mistake...In the edition of Plutarch before me
there is a comma after baptizontes, showing
that in the judgment of the editor there was no immediate logical or
grammatical connection between that word and ek
pithon. According to the punctuation of this
edition, and without changing the Greek order, it would read, “but with bowls
and cups and flagons, along the whole way the soldiers mersing,
out of large wine-jars and mixing-vessels, drank to one another;” or, the
soldiers drank to one another, out of large wine-jars and mixing-vessels,
with bowls and cups and flagons, along the whole way, mersing
(making drunk one another). Baptizo, in the sense to make drunk, is
entirely familiar to Plutarch. The translation, “dipping” is entirely without
authority from use, as has been shown, and as is confirmed by this
construction so impracticable on that view...When Plutarch uses this Greek
word in connection with the drunken rout described he undoubtedly uses it, as
he does elsewhere, to express the controlling influence of the wine, which
was flowing like water. 11. Crippled
and mersed by yesterday’s debauch. [(Conant’s translation) “So then, O Hercules, there is
manifest stratagem, with guile; for the worthy man, himself sober as you see,
purposely sets upon us while still affected with yesterday’s debauch, and
OVERWHELMED (BAPTIZED). ex. 145, p 69. Plutarch, Water and Land Animals,
XXIII.] P 337; (Affected
and hung-over (baptized) by yesterday’s debauch.) There is an express
contrast made between one in a state of sobriety and others in a state of
inebriety. Drunkenness presents various stages and phases. It is to its later
developments that reference is here made. How dipping into water is to be
made, by figure, to illustrate such a passage I leave for others to explain.
The contrast of the sober man and the drunken impossible to find resemblance
between the action of drinking and the action of dipping, for there is none.
It is impossible to find resemblance between the mode in which wine
(drinking) exerts its influence, and the mode in which water (enveloping its
object) exerts its influence, for there is none. It is impossible to find any
resemblance between the nature of wine influence and the nature of water
influence, for there is none. 12. A
good temperament of the body, unmersed and active. [(Conant’s translation) “For truly, a great provision for
a day of enjoyment is a happy temperament of the body, UN-WHELMED
(UN-BAPTIZED) and unencumbered. ex. 144, p 69. Plutarch, Banquet, VI, (introd.).] P 338; This remark
is based on the benefit consequent upon an abstemious mode of living. An unmersed body is one not under the influence of wine... 13. But
the body not yet mersed. [(Conant’s translation) “For of the slightly intoxicated
only the intellect is disturbed; but the body is able to obey its impulses,
being not yet OVERWHELMED (BAPTIZED). ex. 143, pp 68-69. Plutarch, Banquet,
III, question 8.] P 338; The word
translated “slightly intoxicated,” akrothorakon,
means literally and primarily, “slightly armed;” yet Dr. Conant
does not hesitate to translate it as having also the direct meaning,
“slightly intoxicated.” Is there any better reason for giving a secondary
meaning to one of these words rather than to the other? If the former means
“slightly intoxicated,” must not the latter, of necessity, mean thoroughly
intoxicated?...baptizo has acquired the power
to express, directly, the influence of wine to make drunk. JUDAIC BAPTISM 1. I know
some, who, when they become slightly intoxicated, before they become
thoroughly drunk... [(Conant’s translation) “And I know some, who, when they
become slightly intoxicated, before they are completely OVERWHELMED
(BAPTIZED) provide, by contributions and tickets, a carousal for the morrow;
regarding the hope of the future revel as part of the present festivity. ex.
142, p 68. Philo (the Jew), On a contemplative Life, (ii, 478).] P 84 Judaic
Baptism; Such use of baptizo is to be regarded as proof that this word
had secured to itself the power to express directly the influence of
wine-drinking, - to make drunk. 1. The ground of this conclusion is found in
the prevailing and persistent usage of the same phraseology and with the same
application (see above in Classic Baptism). Those quotations are from various
writers, separated from each other widely geographically, and extending
through a space of time exceeding five centuries. In addition to this the
fact (drunkenness) to which the word was applied being a daily occurrence,
and extending from generation to generation, it could not but be that any
word used to designate it must be in continual use. This is farther shown to be
true from the form of use. It is employed absolutely, without any helping
adjunct, and without the shadow of stated or designed figure. Unless the word
was in familiar use it would be unintelligible when thus thrown upon its
power of self-explanation. But it had, most clearly, such self-explaining
power. And now, if all other usage of baptizo were blotted out of the
Greek language this usage would live, having life in itself, and proclaim
from every passage - make drunk! 2. ...The word is not only self-explanatory,
but is capable of being used in this well-understood sense in explanation of
what was less understood. (see above...resembles one
heavy-headed and drunk (baptized)). There baptizo is used by Lucian,
as possessed of a meaning so unmistakable that he considers it quite
sufficient to say, “it resembles one baptized,” when expounding something not
understood. Who will say this is figure and means that the one who drinks of
the Silenic fount is like one dipped in water,
whelmed by a waterflood or sunk in the sea? All
retreat under cloudy figure here is gone. There is but one meaning possible.
The effects of drinking Silenic water are like the
effects of drinking wine. The effects of what is not understood are explained
by that which is well understood. 3. Proof of this meaning is found in the
meaning of the associated and contrasted word, - akrothorakes.
This word, in philology, has nothing more to do with wine-drinking than has baptizo.
It means “slightly armed” or breast armed. Yet Dr. Conant
does not hesitate to translate it - “slightly intoxicated” - while the
contrasted word, baptizo, which every rational consideration requires
to be translated - excessively intoxicated - he beclouds by translating -
whelm. If there is one-half the evidence for translating akrothorakes
by “slight intoxication” than there is for translating baptizo by
“excessive intoxication” I do not know where it is found. Reference may be
made to Aristotle iii Prob. 2, Erotianus Onomast., Plutarch Sympos., Mercurialis iv 6 Var. Lect.,
and Clem. Alex. I, 416, in support of the meaning. And there may be other
authority, but this is enough. And if so, why not the more numerous authorities, and the more varied evidence suffice to
establish the meaning of baptizo, however diverse from bare philology?
This association of terms causes them to react, the one upon the other, in
confirming to each the meaning attributed to it. (p 87) 5... Impracticability
of any rational introduction of figure. Imagination can do a great deal, but
much that it does is without sanction of right reason. To expound the passage
under consideration Dr. Conant uses the following
language: “To overwhelm (figuratively) with an intoxicating liquor, or a
stupefying drug, that takes full possession of one’s powers, like a
resistless flood; or, (as figure may sometimes be understood,) to steep in,
as by immersing in a liquid.” In what way or in what measure this language
throws light upon the case before us I cannot say, for to me it is much less
intelligible than what it is intended to expound. Does Dr. Conant mean by “overwhelm, figuratively” that a mental
picture is to be sketched of wine-casks, with bursting heads, pouring forth a
vinous flood by which the drunkard is overwhelmed and swept away?... If it
should please anyone to write, “As the rising sun enlightens the world,
dissipating the darkness of night, scattering its morning mists and lighting
up its valleys, so education enlightens a people, dispelling the darkness and
doubts and errors of ignorance,” must we, therefore find in the sober
utterance - “he is enlightened by education,” all this play of imagination?
Just as much as in the statement, “I was yesterday baptized - made drunk - by
wine.”... No picturing can be rationally deduced from such direct and naked statements
as those before us. 6....Baptist translations. Conant
translates, - “Whelm - overwhelm with wine.” Both these words are continually
used to express the highest degree of influence without suggesting or
thinking of covering the object. Whether “covering” was in the mind of Dr.
C., or not, I cannot tell, but very few of his readers will feel themselves
called upon by this language to tax their imaginations to find “covering” for
the drunkard... If a man is overwhelmed with wine by drinking he is not
overwhelmed by it as a wine billow. The translation can only express
influence without covering. But Dr. Carson says, “The classical meaning of
the word is in no instance overwhelm.” “Literally it is immersed in wine,”
(p. 79 of Carson’s book.)...But Dr. Carson... declares that the point of
resemblance is not in the immersion at all, “but between a man completely
under the influence of wine, and an object completely subjected to a liquid
in which it is wholly immersed,” (p. 80.) “There is no likeness between the
action of drinking and immersion,” (p. 79.) “The likeness is between their
effects,” (p. 272.) Let us bring this likeness to a more definite point. Is
wine-influence resembled to the influence exerted by immersion over any
particular object, - a stone, a ship, a bag of salt, a human being? Since the
influence in each of these cases differs the resemblance cannot be specific,
and if you eliminate that which is specific you have an abstract
controlling influence. We are then, under the leadership of these Baptist
translators, brought to this conclusion, - that there is a usage of baptizo
in which resemblance rejects mode of action, rejects immersion, rejects
specific influence and reveals an abstract controlling influence. Their
statement then is this; “A man completely under the influence of wine is a
baptized man, because he is like an object completely subjected to a liquid
in which it is wholly immersed - in so far as it is subjected to some
controlling influence.” A rather roundabout way of reaching the truth, but
better such way than not at all...To be baptized by wine - therefore, can
convey but one meaning, - to make drunk ...
|