I have always wondered why, as JW's, we would always say Jt Baptiser instead of Jt Baptist like everyone else. It bugged me, so I refused to say it. Does anyone know why the WTBTS uses the 'Baptiser' moniker instead of the norm?
John the BAPTISER vs John the BAPTIST - which do you prefer?
by PaintedToeNail 6 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
DT
I think it might be because Baptist is a religion. I'm sure they would rather call him John the Jehovah's Witness, but then most people wouldn't know who they were talking about.
-
blondie
*** w93 8/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
Should John who baptized Jesus be referred to as “John the Baptist” or as “John the Baptizer”?
Both designations are correct and Biblically supported.
John was “to get ready for Jehovah a prepared people,” which he did by “preaching baptism in symbol of repentance for forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 1:17; 3:3) The apostle Matthew wrote: “John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying: ‘Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.’ . . . Then Jerusalem and all Judea . . . made their way out to him, and people were baptized by him in the Jordan River, openly confessing their sins.”—Matthew 3:1-6.
Notice that Matthew identifies John as “the Baptist.” Matthew, who was evidently tailoring his account to Jews, must have felt that the Jews would know who “the Baptist” was. He used “the Baptist” as a sort of surname. Jesus and his disciples used “John the Baptist,” as did the servants of Herod.—Matthew 11:11, 12; 14:2; 16:14.
The disciple Mark reports a similar use of “the Baptist.” (Mark 6:25; 8:28) But when introducing John, Mark called him “John the baptizer.” (Mark 1:4) The Greek involved at Mark 1:4 differs slightly from that of the other verses. Mark 1:4 might also be rendered “the baptizing one.” Mark was highlighting what John was doing; he was the one doing baptizing, the baptizer.
It does not appear, however, that we must distinguish between these ways of referring to John. At Mark 6:24, 25, we read about Salome: “She went out and said to her mother: ‘What should I ask for?’ She said: ‘The head of John the baptizer.’ Immediately she went in with haste to the king and made her request, saying: ‘I want you to give me right away on a platter the head of John the Baptist.’” The two designations were used interchangeably.
Some people might understand “the Baptist” according to the second definition in a dictionary: “A member or adherent of an evangelical Protestant denomination marked by congregational polity and baptism by immersion of believers only.” John certainly was not that.
Hence, both “John the Baptist” and “John the Baptizer” are correct and proper.
[Footnotes]
(The NWT uses Baptizer in Mark only (3 times) and Baptist in the rest) (The interesting thing is how it is used in the publications)
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote of “John, surnamed the Baptist.”
-
Cold Steel
Or...how about John the Immerser, or John the Dipper? I like John the Baptist. As for why the JWs use some of the terms they do, I'm convinced because they prefer it that way. The New World Translation is an entire book of bad translation. Why "slaves" instead of "servants"? Why "discreet" instead of "wise"? They take the sublime and the profound out of everything, then they turn it into the pedestrian.
-
Ding
Since Christendom calls him John the Baptist, the WTS has to be different.
It's also another way JWs have of believing that they possess superior Bible knowledge to everyone else.
-
Rattigan350
John was not a baptist. Baptists are a protestant breed. Protestantism did not come until 1000 + years later.
He was a baptizer because that is what he did.
It is not a Watchtower thing other than to bring out that fact.
-
PaintedToeNail
Rattigan-With that logic, my dentist isn't one, he is a dentaler, my machinist relative is a machiner and so on. The Baptist religion came long after John lived and died.