Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
If a person does much reading on the long-standing controversy over the proper mode of baptism, they are likely to encounter the writings of (or references to) the 19th century Presbyterian minister James W. Dale. Indeed, Dale’s five-volume series has been mentioned quite a few times here at the PB on some of the threads related to that topic. It has even been asserted that Dale’s work is perhaps the most important ever produced in terms of determining the true meaning of the Greek verb baptizo, and that it is essentially conclusive on the issue.
Yet at least one objective fact which stands out in all this is that Dale’s characterization of baptizo is entirely antithetical to what one finds in virtually all mainstream lexicons. This holds true whether these references were produced before or after Dale’s work was published. Consider:
As have nearly all lexicons before them, Sophocles, Liddell & Scott, Kittel, Thayer, Zodhiates, Wuest, Strong’s, Vine’s, and BDAG all list “dip” and/or “immerse” as being a normal, and in most cases even the primary meaning of baptizo. Numerous reputable theologians throughout history, such as Luther, Calvin, Beza, Gomarus, Turretin and Witsius have plainly and readily concurred.
Dale, on the other hand, unflinchingly proclaimed: “If anything in language can be proved, it has been proved that baptizo does not express any definite form of act, and, therefore, does not express the definite act ‘to dip’.”
What then is to be made of such a glaring discrepancy? Was Dale really correct, and virtually all other Greek scholars simply mistaken in this long-studied yet seemingly straightforward matter?
By all accounts Dale was an admirable man both in his personal life and in his principle vocation as a local pastor. But as I engaged in a somewhat lengthy study of his writings I must say that I found his scholarship to be rather problematic, and even troubling in some respects. This assessment would include a number of highly irregular lingual tenets that Dale posited and then proceeded to build his theory on, and his often odd and seemingly biased translation of the primary sources that were cited as proof of his position. Of course if these foundational aspects of a system are deemed flawed or suspect, little else of it remains unblemished.
To me Dale even becomes a bit of a tragic figure when, as an apparent outgrowth of his unusual views, he was obliged to conclude that the Great Commission does not refer to the sacrament of water baptism at all. Nor, according to Dale, do the baptismal accounts of the 3000 converts at Pentecost or that of the apostle Paul by Ananias involve the outward rite of water baptism.
Nonetheless, some of Dale’s current admirers still promote his work as being the best ever when it comes to the subject of baptismal mode. It has also been claimed that Dale’s assertions have never been answered—because, they are essentially “unanswerable”. But despite the aura of insuperability that Dale seems to have attained in some circles, if one researches the issue they will actually find that a fair number of Dale’s contemporaries quite intelligibly challenged many of his basic premises, and rather forcefully refuted the conclusions they led to. The attached review in fact incorporates many of these historical criticisms, which came from immersionists and non-immersionists alike.
My article is by no means light reading. I think the rather technical nature of the subject matter effectively prevents that. As such, a person will usually (and understandably) have to have a pretty direct interest in an issue like this before they will really want to study it. These factors, along with the considerable length of the review will undoubtedly limit the number of people who read it. (In an effort to treat Dale’s copious writings in an appropriately thorough manner, it ended up being some 55 pages long—but, hey, that’s still only about 4% of the length of Dale’s series!) At any rate, I thought I would post it for anyone who might be interested in looking it over—and maybe want to offer some thoughts of their own.
View attachment 1978
View attachment 1977
Yet at least one objective fact which stands out in all this is that Dale’s characterization of baptizo is entirely antithetical to what one finds in virtually all mainstream lexicons. This holds true whether these references were produced before or after Dale’s work was published. Consider:
As have nearly all lexicons before them, Sophocles, Liddell & Scott, Kittel, Thayer, Zodhiates, Wuest, Strong’s, Vine’s, and BDAG all list “dip” and/or “immerse” as being a normal, and in most cases even the primary meaning of baptizo. Numerous reputable theologians throughout history, such as Luther, Calvin, Beza, Gomarus, Turretin and Witsius have plainly and readily concurred.
Dale, on the other hand, unflinchingly proclaimed: “If anything in language can be proved, it has been proved that baptizo does not express any definite form of act, and, therefore, does not express the definite act ‘to dip’.”
What then is to be made of such a glaring discrepancy? Was Dale really correct, and virtually all other Greek scholars simply mistaken in this long-studied yet seemingly straightforward matter?
By all accounts Dale was an admirable man both in his personal life and in his principle vocation as a local pastor. But as I engaged in a somewhat lengthy study of his writings I must say that I found his scholarship to be rather problematic, and even troubling in some respects. This assessment would include a number of highly irregular lingual tenets that Dale posited and then proceeded to build his theory on, and his often odd and seemingly biased translation of the primary sources that were cited as proof of his position. Of course if these foundational aspects of a system are deemed flawed or suspect, little else of it remains unblemished.
To me Dale even becomes a bit of a tragic figure when, as an apparent outgrowth of his unusual views, he was obliged to conclude that the Great Commission does not refer to the sacrament of water baptism at all. Nor, according to Dale, do the baptismal accounts of the 3000 converts at Pentecost or that of the apostle Paul by Ananias involve the outward rite of water baptism.
Nonetheless, some of Dale’s current admirers still promote his work as being the best ever when it comes to the subject of baptismal mode. It has also been claimed that Dale’s assertions have never been answered—because, they are essentially “unanswerable”. But despite the aura of insuperability that Dale seems to have attained in some circles, if one researches the issue they will actually find that a fair number of Dale’s contemporaries quite intelligibly challenged many of his basic premises, and rather forcefully refuted the conclusions they led to. The attached review in fact incorporates many of these historical criticisms, which came from immersionists and non-immersionists alike.
My article is by no means light reading. I think the rather technical nature of the subject matter effectively prevents that. As such, a person will usually (and understandably) have to have a pretty direct interest in an issue like this before they will really want to study it. These factors, along with the considerable length of the review will undoubtedly limit the number of people who read it. (In an effort to treat Dale’s copious writings in an appropriately thorough manner, it ended up being some 55 pages long—but, hey, that’s still only about 4% of the length of Dale’s series!) At any rate, I thought I would post it for anyone who might be interested in looking it over—and maybe want to offer some thoughts of their own.
View attachment 1978
View attachment 1977
Last edited: