-
Articles_of_he_Bishop_of_Uramiah, page : 405
They all used water for the material of their baptism, and,
more or less, in similar form or manner. But each religion
adopted a different name to distinguish its own practice
from that of the other two. The original Aramaic "Sab'urtha"
- properly and truly translated into the Greek "baptismos" -
was faithfully preserved by the Saba'ites (Sabians). It
appears that the Semitic Christians, in order to distinguish
their sacramental baptism from that of the Sabaites, adopted
the appellation of "ma'muditha" which, from a linguistic
point of view, has nothing whatever to do with baptism or
even with washing or immersion. It is only an ecclesiatical
coinage. Why "ma'muditha" was adopted to replace "Sab'utha"
is a question altogether foreign to our present subject;
but en passant, I may add that this word in the Pshittha is
used also for a pool, a basin for ablution (John v.2). The
only explanation which may lead towards the solution of this
problem of the "ma'muditha" is the fact that John the Baptist
more or less, in similar form or manner. But each religion
adopted a different name to distinguish its own practice
from that of the other two. The original Aramaic "Sab'urtha"
- properly and truly translated into the Greek "baptismos" -
was faithfully preserved by the Saba'ites (Sabians). It
appears that the Semitic Christians, in order to distinguish
their sacramental baptism from that of the Sabaites, adopted
the appellation of "ma'muditha" which, from a linguistic
point of view, has nothing whatever to do with baptism or
even with washing or immersion. It is only an ecclesiatical
coinage. Why "ma'muditha" was adopted to replace "Sab'utha"
is a question altogether foreign to our present subject;
but en passant, I may add that this word in the Pshittha is
used also for a pool, a basin for ablution (John v.2). The
only explanation which may lead towards the solution of this
problem of the "ma'muditha" is the fact that John the Baptist