# Early Baptismal Art



## Phil D.

I have recently been browsing the various PB threads which have dealt with the subject of baptism over the last several years. I noticed that a number of people have remarked that all of the earliest art relating to baptism seems to show it being administered by pouring or sprinkling. Historically, this evidence has been cited by quite few non-immersionist scholars (e.g. B.B. Warfield, R.C. Sproul) as strongly suggesting that such must have been the practice in the immediately preceding apostolic church as well. One participant in a discussion here on the PB specifically suggested that a new thread be started to explore this intriguing issue. Well…

In the course of investigating “all things baptismal” over the last 15 years or so, it happens that I put together an article on this very matter. So, I thought I’d share it via a link here for those who may be interested. I put the article on a separate webpage for two main reasons:

1)	It is somewhat lengthy (about 8 typically formatted pages in MS WORD for the main article, and about 3 pages of endnotes).

2)	*I have included a number of the actual pictures in question, in which the 2nd and 3rd Persons of the Trinity (as well as nudity) are depicted*. I know that such portrayals are believed by some Christians to be a breach of the 2nd Commandment. Generally, I have some strong predilections along these same lines myself. However, I would respectfully suggest that there is an allowable difference between viewing such artifacts for the purpose of trying to understand, and thus be informed by their historical significance, as opposed to using them as objects of religious devotion, to draw some kind of personal inspiration from, or out of gratuitous curiosity. Still, others will undoubtedly disagree even with making exceptions like these. In sincere deference to those who may hold such convictions, *the pictures are shown in a separate section* following the article and notes, which will allow the text to be viewed by all. In addition, there is enough in the way of written descriptions of the pictures to give one a basic idea as to the various features that are being discussed. Viewers are encouraged to act in accordance with their own, biblically-informed conscience in this matter. (Note: I would also really appreciate it if this thread were not turned into a discussion of this particular side-issue. Thanks!)

I would, however, still like any discussion of this article to take place here on the PB. I am so impressed with the tremendous job that has been done with respect to structuring threads in a way that facilitates such good interaction—even though I am still trying to learn some of the ropes myself!

Finally, just to be clear, I am not in any way suggesting that the practice of the patristic church, no matter how chronologically close to the apostolic age, can serve as an authoritative reference for how baptism (or anything else, for that matter) should now be performed. That role is certainly reserved for a single source: _sola Scriptura_. Thus any inferences that are to be drawn from other historical sources like early Christian art serve only in a suggestive capacity (e.g., it would seem rather odd if the apostolic church had practiced one mode of baptism, while by all evidence the churches immediately subsequent to that time practiced another).

So, for those interested (and be warned that there may be some surprises along the way—I know for myself there sure were!), here is the link to my article on Early Baptismal Art.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Thank you! This is an interesting addition to the conversation. Note that there are some presbyterians who agree with you on this topic, for example, the great Reformer Jean Calvin, who thought that immersion was the most ancient practice (though he also accepted sprinkling or pouring as valid.) I would be interested to see some more photos, other than the ones you have shown. I once saw a very ancient mural when I was visiting the Roman catacombs (I think 3rd or 4th century), which depicted a baptizer pouring water on the head of a baptized person from a bowl, both standing in a river.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

This is all very interesting but should we really place links to images that violate the 2nd commandment?


----------



## Marrow Man

Phil D. said:


> I know that such portrayals are believed by some Christians to be a breach of the 2nd Commandment. Generally, I have some strong predilections along these same lines myself. However, I would respectfully suggest that there is an allowable difference between viewing such artifacts for the purpose of trying to understand, and thus be informed by their historical significance, as opposed to using them as objects of religious devotion, to draw some kind of personal inspiration from, or out of gratuitous curiosity. Still, others will undoubtedly disagree even with making exceptions like these. In sincere deference to those who may hold such convictions, the pictures are shown in a separate section following the article and notes, which will allow the text to be viewed by all. In addition, there is enough in the way of written descriptions of the pictures to give one a basic idea as to the various features that are being discussed. Viewers are encouraged to act in accordance with their own, biblically-informed conscience in this matter.



Phil, I appreciate the warning you have posted. However, as this is a confessional board, and the Westminster Standards are the default confessional document of the PB (as well as the confession you have listed as subscribing to), this cannot be reduced to matter of indifference. It is the policy of the PB (per WLC Q. 109) that depictions of Christ (or any member of the Trinity for that matter) is a violation of the Second Commandment. As you have stated, that is a side issue to this thread, but I am only posting them as an FYI from the position of board moderation.

With regard to the article, it appears well researched, but I must admit I am disappointed that you did not interact more with Warfield. You did have once reference to a work of his early on in the article, but I am not certain if it is the same as his article "The archaeology of the Mode of Baptism" (found in his Works, vol. 9) since I have a different collection that what you have referenced. Warfield interacts with the artwork in great detail in that article and comments on the differences (as do some of the authors in your article) on why the literature and the artistic depictions seem "contradictory" in our modern reading.


----------



## Marrow Man

Incidentally, here is a link to Warfield's article.


----------



## Phil D.

Willem van Oranje said:


> I would be interested to see some more photos, other than the ones you have shown. I once saw a very ancient mural when I was visiting the Roman catacombs (I think 3rd or 4th century), which depicted a baptizer pouring water on the head of a baptized person from a bowl, both standing in a river.



Riley, I'm not aware of any other catacomb depictions of baptism that are believed to predate the 6th century. There are some later ones that might include the one you are referring to.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Not to mention, The portion you quoted by Hippolytus is incomplete. How were the infants immersed? or were they? Hippolytus is silent on this issue in this portion of his writings except that they were certainly baptized. 

From "The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome" which you quoted.

Lets start from 21:1 

21 "1. At the hour in which the cockcrows, they shall first pray over the water. 2When 
they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring 
or a flowing body of water. 3Then they shall take off all their clothes. 4The children shall be 
baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there 
are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or 
someone else from their family. 5After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, 
after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any 
foreign object with themselves down into the water."


What are we to make of this portion begingin at 21:6?

"6At the time determined for baptism, *the bishop shall give thanks over some oil*, which he 
puts in a vessel. It is called the *Oil of Thanksgiving*. 7He shall take some more oil *and 
exorcise it.* It is called the *Oil of Exorcism*. 8A deacon shall hold the *Oil of Exorcism *and 
stand on the left. Another deacon shall hold the *Oil of Thanksgiving *and stand on the right."


----------



## Phil D.

Marrow Man said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that such portrayals are believed by some Christians to be a breach of the 2nd Commandment. Generally, I have some strong predilections along these same lines myself. However, I would respectfully suggest that there is an allowable difference between viewing such artifacts for the purpose of trying to understand, and thus be informed by their historical significance, as opposed to using them as objects of religious devotion, to draw some kind of personal inspiration from, or out of gratuitous curiosity. Still, others will undoubtedly disagree even with making exceptions like these. In sincere deference to those who may hold such convictions, the pictures are shown in a separate section following the article and notes, which will allow the text to be viewed by all. In addition, there is enough in the way of written descriptions of the pictures to give one a basic idea as to the various features that are being discussed. Viewers are encouraged to act in accordance with their own, biblically-informed conscience in this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phil, I appreciate the warning you have posted. However, as this is a confessional board, and the Westminster Standards are the default confessional document of the PB (as well as the confession you have listed as subscribing to), this cannot be reduced to matter of indifference. It is the policy of the PB (per WLC Q. 109) that depictions of Christ (or any member of the Trinity for that matter) is a violation of the Second Commandment. As you have stated, that is a side issue to this thread, but I am only posting them as an FYI from the position of board moderation.
> 
> With regard to the article, it appears well researched, but I must admit I am disappointed that you did not interact more with Warfield. You did have once reference to a work of his early on in the article, but I am not certain if it is the same as his article "The archaeology of the Mode of Baptism" (found in his Works, vol. 9) since I have a different collection that what you have referenced. Warfield interacts with the artwork in great detail in that article and comments on the differences (as do some of the authors in your article) on why the literature and the artistic depictions seem "contradictory" in our modern reading.
Click to expand...

 
Tim, thanks for the feedback. I certainly hope I didn't come across as deeming the whole 2nd Commandment issue as being something "indifferent." I tried to clearly state my reasoning. I would also point out that many Presbyterian leaders who were/are full subscriptionists (e.g. Warfield/Sproul) have obviously studied these historical examples depicting Christ's baptism for the same specific purposes that I suggested. I of course place myself at the mercy of the board moderators as to whether or not they feel my thread should be removed or modified. I will certainly submit to any such ruling in this matter.

As for the Warfield's article that I reference, yes it is the same one to which you refer. More modern scholars, however, would simply disagree with much of his evaluation of early baptismal art. If you want to bring up a specific viewpoint of his that you think is worth looking at more closely, by all means do so, and we'll interact with it.

---------- Post added at 10:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 AM ----------




Pilgrim Standard said:


> Not to mention, The portion you quoted by Hippolytus is incomplete. How were the infants immersed? or were they? Hippolytus is silent on this issue in this portion of his writings except that they were certainly baptized.
> 
> From "The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome" which you quoted.
> 
> Lets start from 21:1
> 
> 21 "1. At the hour in which the cockcrows, they shall first pray over the water. 2When
> they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring
> or a flowing body of water. 3Then they shall take off all their clothes. 4The children shall be
> baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there
> are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or
> someone else from their family. 5After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women,
> after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any
> foreign object with themselves down into the water."
> 
> 
> What are we to make of this portion begingin at 21:6?
> 
> "6At the time determined for baptism, *the bishop shall give thanks over some oil*, which he
> puts in a vessel. It is called the *Oil of Thanksgiving*. 7He shall take some more oil *and
> exorcise it.* It is called the *Oil of Exorcism*. 8A deacon shall hold the *Oil of Exorcism *and
> stand on the left. Another deacon shall hold the *Oil of Thanksgiving *and stand on the right."


 
Hello, Benjamin. I don't think we've interacted before. I'm not entirely sure as to how your points relate to what I was speaking to in my article. In terms of what I think about the additional practices like anointing with oil that were introduced in the early church that you cited, I would refer you to the second to last paragraph in the OP.

Best regards,

Phil D.


----------



## Marrow Man

Phil D. said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be interested to see some more photos, other than the ones you have shown. I once saw a very ancient mural when I was visiting the Roman catacombs (I think 3rd or 4th century), which depicted a baptizer pouring water on the head of a baptized person from a bowl, both standing in a river.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riley, I'm not aware of any other catacomb depictions of baptism that are believed to predate the 6th century. There are some later ones that might include the one you are referring to.
Click to expand...

 
With regard to Warfield's article, I believe he does mention several examples of pre-6th century baptismal art in it (including catacomb art).

Here's a question, though, related to Warfield's point: do we have any examples of early baptismal art that depicts immersion in the manner in which it is ordinarily thought of today. That is, are there any examples of the person being baptized being laid out backwards into the water source and then being raised up again?

I have another question as well, unrelated to Warfield: do we have any artistic depictions, regardless of mode, of females being baptized in early Christian art? It is something I hadn't considered before, so I am curious.


----------



## Phil D.

Marrow Man said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be interested to see some more photos, other than the ones you have shown. I once saw a very ancient mural when I was visiting the Roman catacombs (I think 3rd or 4th century), which depicted a baptizer pouring water on the head of a baptized person from a bowl, both standing in a river.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riley, I'm not aware of any other catacomb depictions of baptism that are believed to predate the 6th century. There are some later ones that might include the one you are referring to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With regard to Warfield's article, I believe he does mention several examples of pre-6th century baptismal art in it (including catacomb art).
> 
> Here's a question, though, related to Warfield's point: do we have any examples of early baptismal art that depicts immersion in the manner in which it is ordinarily thought of today. That is, are there any examples of the person being baptized being laid out backwards into the water source and then being raised up again?
> 
> I have another question as well, unrelated to Warfield: do we have any artistic depictions, regardless of mode, of females being baptized in early Christian art? It is something I hadn't considered before, so I am curious.
Click to expand...

 
Tim, yes Warfield did use some pre-6th century examples in his article, but again, most post-1980 authors that I have read on the subject would disagree with his analysis that they show the recipient having the water of baptism poured on them. Accepting the later consensus interpretation, much of Warfield's subsequent conclusions are simply rendered moot.

As for the "dipping backwards" method of immersion used by most modern immersionists, from what I have been able to tell it most likely originated among the English Baptists in the early 1640's. Most other descriptions of adult immersion prior to that seem to either directly or indirectly indicate the same "assisted self-immersion" that one finds in earlier Jewish and Christian literature.

There are some depictions of women being baptized in Christian artistry, most originating from the 7th or 8th centuries onward. Some earlier examples are open to interpretation both as to the subject (i.e. does it really depict a water baptism) and the gender of the person involved. Ferguson does suggest that a stylized grave inscription from the 4th century which some have interpreted as symbolizing a baptism, may show a female subject.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

One of the pictures on your site (figure 4) appears to depict water being dripped on subject from above like a stream of raindrops. Also, figure 6 is not loading.

---------- Post added at 01:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 PM ----------

A couple things about your interpretation of the pictures:

Figure 1 portrays a human figure rising up out of the river, climbing onto the bank, with a dove descending above. This would mirror with the description in the account of Jesus baptism, when the Holy Spirit descends as a dove as he is stepping up out of the river onto the bank. This account doesn't imply that he was immersed, so neither would the photo imply that it is depicting baptism by full immersion. 

The other pictures portray a baptizer with his hand on top of the head of the subject. It would seem strange if this were depicting the moment just before a baptism by full immersion, as is suggested. Why would all these photos be depicting the moment just before baptism, which is less significant than the baptism itself? It seems more likely just based on reasonable interpretation that they are depicting the baptism itself, i. e. when water is applied to the head.


----------



## Phil D.

Riley, did you read the part of my article (toward the end) which deals with the "flow" that is sometimes shown proceeding from the dove? My server (GChrome) has had no problem downloading the images. I' think I may be too paranoid now to provide an alternate link that would show it...


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Phil D. said:


> Riley, did you read the part of my article (toward the end) which deals with the "flow" that is sometimes shown proceeding from the dove? My server (GChrome) has had no problem downloading the images. I' think I may be too paranoid now to provide an alternate link that would show it...


 
It clearly looks like sprinkles of water, as if poured from a water-sprinkler  This is a valid form of baptism, but hardly immersion, even if you use a ton of water. It is coming from the dove in the picture, apparently linking the waters of baptism to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (aka. baptism of the Holy Spirit) upon the subject. And in fact, this is what sprinkling signifies so well.


----------



## Phil D.

Willem van Oranje said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riley, did you read the part of my article (toward the end) which deals with the "flow" that is sometimes shown proceeding from the dove? My server (GChrome) has had no problem downloading the images. I' think I may be too paranoid now to provide an alternate link that would show it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It clearly looks like sprinkles of water, as if poured from a water-sprinkler  This is a valid form of baptism, but hardly immersion, even if you use a ton of water. It is coming from the dove in the picture, apparently linking the waters of baptism to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (aka. baptism of the Holy Spirit) upon the subject. And in fact, this is what sprinkling signifies so well.
Click to expand...

 
Fair enough, brother. In the end we all "see" what we "see." There is certainly an inherent subjectiveness in symbolical art. Naturally, based on the original sources that I cited, I find the explanation that I posited to be more compelling!


----------



## Marrow Man

Phil D. said:


> Tim, yes Warfield did use some pre-6th century examples in his article, but again, most post-1980 authors that I have read on the subject would disagree with his analysis that they show the recipient having the water of baptism poured on them. Accepting the later consensus interpretation, much of Warfield's subsequent conclusions are simply rendered moot.



Yes, but only if one "accepts" these particular sources. It would behoove you, if you wish to make that argument, to list these authors and and show how they specifically interact with Warfield on the matter, while also realizing that there may be others who agree with him. This is what good scholarship does. As it stands now, your article does not even deal with Warfield at all (other than the sampling quote in the introduction). And since it does not fit with your particular thesis, you have simply dismissed any reference to pre-6th century baptismal art.


----------



## Phil D.

Marrow Man said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tim, yes Warfield did use some pre-6th century examples in his article, but again, most post-1980 authors that I have read on the subject would disagree with his analysis that they show the recipient having the water of baptism poured on them. Accepting the later consensus interpretation, much of Warfield's subsequent conclusions are simply rendered moot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but only if one "accepts" these particular sources. It would behoove you, if you wish to make that argument, to list these authors and and show how they specifically interact with Warfield on the matter, while also realizing that there may be others who agree with him. This is what good scholarship does. As it stands now, your article does not even deal with Warfield at all (other than the sampling quote in the introduction). And since it does not fit with your particular thesis, you have simply dismissed any reference to pre-6th century baptismal art.
Click to expand...

 
Tim, the object and scope of my article was not to do a review of any one person's thesis in the matter, but rather to deal with it from the perspective of a broader, historical overview. Based on my own study, yes, I do agree with the more recent scholarship regarding the examples in question. But as I said before, if you want to bring up a specific viewpoint(s) of Warfield's that you think is worthy of looking at more closely, please do.


----------



## steadfast7

Marrow Man said:


> Here's a question, though, related to Warfield's point: do we have any examples of early baptismal art that depicts immersion in the manner in which it is ordinarily thought of today. That is, are there any examples of the person being baptized being laid out backwards into the water source and then being raised up again?


 
Just wanted to point out that we needn't seek baptismal art to interpolate the practice of the early churches. The baptisteries of ancient churches, like the one Augustine was baptised in, were large and filled with water; people obviously went into them, implying that they got themselves soaked before coming out.


----------



## Phil D.

Tim - Warfield, like many others in his era (which was just shortly after the catacomb pictures were discovered, and thus they had been disseminated only by a limited number of scholars), interpreted the scenes as showing the "water of baptism being poured over the subject's head." Moreover, they understood the recipient as merely being a "generic" representation of a baptismal candidate.

Modern scholarship has now come to the general consensus that these pictures uniformly represent Christ's baptism by John (for reasons I address in my article). Thus the symbolism traditionally connected to that specific event in Christian writings of the same time must be given considerable weight in how these pictures are interpreted. Based on this material, their is broad agreement that they do not show the administrator pouring water over the recipient's head.

Given this fundamental difference in interpretation from the get-go, any conclusions that subsequently proceed from these two viewpoints are on divergent paths. I'm now sure how it is then possible to carry on a meaningful interaction between them.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

It must also be kept in mind that the Jordan River is not naturally deep enough to fully immerse an adult. In order to perform baptisms in the Jordan by full immersion in modern tmes, they had to build a deep tub into it to pool the water in one place.


----------



## Phil D.

Nova said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a question, though, related to Warfield's point: do we have any examples of early baptismal art that depicts immersion in the manner in which it is ordinarily thought of today. That is, are there any examples of the person being baptized being laid out backwards into the water source and then being raised up again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just wanted to point out that we needn't seek baptismal art to interpolate the practice of the early churches. The baptisteries of ancient churches, like the one Augustine was baptised in, were large and filled with water; people obviously went into them, implying that they got themselves soaked before coming out.
Click to expand...

 
In Suk, the matter of early baptisteries is certainly fascinating in its own right, and sheds its own light on the overall topic. The intent of my article is to revisit a specific strain of evidence that has been frequently invoked as indicating the use of a particular mode of baptism in the early church by non-immersionist commentators over the last century or so.

---------- Post added at 12:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 PM ----------




Willem van Oranje said:


> It must also be kept in mind that the Jordan River is not naturally deep enough to fully immerse an adult. In order to perform baptisms in the Jordan by full immersion in modern tmes, they had to build a deep tub into it to pool the water in one place.


 
With all due respect, I believe this is a little bit  for this particular discussion (what these early baptismal scenes intended to convey.) However if and when someone starts another thread that deals with some of the other aspects of the traditional immersionist vs. non-immersionist debate like this one, I may have plenty to say then too!


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Phil, I appreciate your academic integrity and spirit of inquiry, since you appear to be a non-immersionist but are not afraid to question whether this particular evidence points to non-immersion as has been supposed, going where the evidence leads you. From one "non-immersionist" to another.


----------



## Marrow Man

Nova said:


> Just wanted to point out that we needn't seek baptismal art to interpolate the practice of the early churches. The baptisteries of ancient churches, like the one Augustine was baptised in, were large and filled with water; people obviously went into them, implying that they got themselves soaked before coming out.



This is not what I asked -- I asked whether there was any positive evidence (in the form of baptismal art) that demonstrates a form of baptism by immersion resembling what we commonly think of that practice today -- a leaning back into the water and then being brought up out of the water. I'm not sure by you comment if you are assuming that "a large baptismal pool" = "modern mode of immersion" since you simply say the "got themselves soaked," which can mean any number of things. If you read the Warfield article I linked above, you will see that the conclusion is that baptism "by immersion" took one of two forms -- the recipient stepped into the pool to his waist or chest -- or possibly knelt -- and water was poured upon him in a three-fold fashion. Or, the recipient lowered/duck his head under the water three times. In both cases, the recipient would have "gotten soaked" to be sure, but it would not have resembled the modern-day view of immersion. I was simply asking for specific positive evidence of the latter.


----------



## Phil D.

Willem van Oranje said:


> One of the pictures on your site (figure 4) appears to depict water being dripped on subject from above like a stream of raindrops. Also, figure 6 is not loading.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 PM ----------
> 
> A couple things about your interpretation of the pictures:
> 
> The other pictures portray a baptizer with his hand on top of the head of the subject. It would seem strange if this were depicting the moment just before a baptism by full immersion, as is suggested. Why would all these photos be depicting the moment just before baptism, which is less significant than the baptism itself? It seems more likely just based on reasonable interpretation that they are depicting the baptism itself, i. e. when water is applied to the head.


 
First, I hope I amply demonstrate in my article that this is not merely "my" interpretation of the evidence. 

As I have also tried to establish, the major problem with seeing these baptisms as portraying a "pouring" of the water is that they are then made to become blatantly adversarial to the many written literal descriptions of water baptism that were produced at the same time, and sometimes even the same places.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Phil D. said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the pictures on your site (figure 4) appears to depict water being dripped on subject from above like a stream of raindrops. Also, figure 6 is not loading.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 PM ----------
> 
> A couple things about your interpretation of the pictures:
> 
> The other pictures portray a baptizer with his hand on top of the head of the subject. It would seem strange if this were depicting the moment just before a baptism by full immersion, as is suggested. Why would all these photos be depicting the moment just before baptism, which is less significant than the baptism itself? It seems more likely just based on reasonable interpretation that they are depicting the baptism itself, i. e. when water is applied to the head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I hope I amply demonstrate in my article that this is not merely "my" interpretation of the evidence.
> 
> As I have also tried to establish, the major problem with seeing these baptisms as portraying a "pouring" of the water is that they are then made to become blatantly adversarial to the many written literal descriptions of water baptism that were produced at the same time, and sometimes even the same places.
Click to expand...

 
Not if we assume that both practices were prevelant, which seems likely given the Scriptural accounts of baptisms performed by aspersion and other early evidence like the Didache.


----------



## Phil D.

Willem van Oranje said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the pictures on your site (figure 4) appears to depict water being dripped on subject from above like a stream of raindrops. Also, figure 6 is not loading.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 PM ----------
> 
> A couple things about your interpretation of the pictures:
> 
> The other pictures portray a baptizer with his hand on top of the head of the subject. It would seem strange if this were depicting the moment just before a baptism by full immersion, as is suggested. Why would all these photos be depicting the moment just before baptism, which is less significant than the baptism itself? It seems more likely just based on reasonable interpretation that they are depicting the baptism itself, i. e. when water is applied to the head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I hope I amply demonstrate in my article that this is not merely "my" interpretation of the evidence.
> 
> As I have also tried to establish, the major problem with seeing these baptisms as portraying a "pouring" of the water is that they are then made to become blatantly adversarial to the many written literal descriptions of water baptism that were produced at the same time, and sometimes even the same places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if we assume that both practices were prevelant, which seems likely given the Scriptural accounts of baptisms performed by aspersion and other early evidence like the Didache.
Click to expand...

 
So then, may we also suppose that all of the written accounts (official liturgies, other descriptions) are singularly referencing the occasions/places where immersion was used, while all of the pictures are singularly referencing the times pouring was used? 

Surely, as Bigg, Ferguson, Jensen and others have argued, it would seem that a much better and more defensible approach is to try and understand each (art and literature) in light of the other, and, as long as it is reasonable to do so, synthesize them in a complimentary way. Since there are numerous explicit mentions of the administrator's hand being placed on the recipient's head in connection with an actual immersion, why shouldn't we be accepting of this fact in our evaluation of art that is contemporaneous with them? 

There is no question that from very early on pouring was seen as a suitable alternative to immersion under certain mitigating circumstances (e.g., the _Didache_). I don't know of any serious scholar, immersionist or otherwise, who would dispute this. But it would be very difficult to suppose that all of the art specimens are somehow depicting the exception, rather than the rule.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Phil D. said:


> But it would be very difficult to suppose that all of the art specimens are somehow depicting the exception, rather than the rule.



It would seem likely that pictures meant to depict Christ would be painted by the heterodox and less well-instructed, taking the 2nd commandment into consideration. If aspersion was good enough for Ananaias and Paul it's good enough for us.


----------



## Phil D.

Willem van Oranje said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it would be very difficult to suppose that all of the art specimens are somehow depicting the exception, rather than the rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem likely that pictures meant to depict Christ would be painted by the heterodox and less well-instructed, taking the 2nd commandment into consideration. If aspersion was good enough for Ananaias and Paul it's good enough for us.
Click to expand...

 
I'll certainly give you credit for persistence in supporting your position here! - and I've certainly enjoyed the dialogue. 

As for how a "typical" 3rd century gentile Roman Christian understanding of the 2nd Commandment might possible figure in here, we should perhaps remember that the Christiology of the church was far from settled then. As I'm certain you also know, widespread confusion on this matter in fact gave rise to Nicea in the early 4th century, yet the debate even continued on for centuries more.

Come on now, considering all of the more definable factors involved in the equation, wouldn't you admit that you're reaching here just a little bit? As for Paul and Aninaias, well, we'll leave that discussion for another time...


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Phil D. said:


> Come on now, considering all of the more definable factors involved in the equation, wouldn't you admit that you're reaching here just a little bit?



What, by not putting a lot of stock in the pictures? Nope. For starters, I don't believe the pictures are depicting baptism by immersion, from the looks of them. Secondly, I don't put a lot of stock in pictures which contain depictions meant to represent Christ, whether they be first century or late 3rd century, as representing trustworthy tradition. Thirdly, I'm not buying that all the written evidence is on the side of immersion.


----------



## Phil D.

Also, if, as you said before, you think that the pictures probably show pouring or sprinkling, how does this comport with your idea that it was likely the "heterodox" who produced them?

Just saying...

---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:26 PM ----------

Fair enough, brother. As they say, let each decide for themselves.


----------



## Kevin

A few thought after reading your article; 

First, I have observed a couple of hundred baptisms in my life. In every instance of baptism by sprinkling or pouring the minister placed his hand on the recipients head, in no case of immersion have I seen the same practice. That has nothing to do with you specific point, but an interesting observation.

Second, "Superstitious" practices have been documented around the practice of baptism since early in the first century. Most famously the practice of using "living water" only, or baptising in running water. The use of baptismal pools to simulate the creekside expirience is well known. The additional practice of using large amounts of water for the same purpose, pouring out of shells, etc. So early practices are no failsafe guide.

Third, Assuming that these pictures do corectly depict the baptism of Jesus (an unproven assumption in my opinion), What baptism is this? Since St John would only baptise after he had been reminded by Jesus of the requirement of the Law to do so, the question remains which baptism? Jesus was baptised because of a specific OT baptism & the 3 possible options are the 3 High Preistly baptisms (oil, blood, water) what other OT ritual could be proposed that allowed for immersion?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think the pictures clearly prove that the proper mode for the practice of immersion is much water and _nude_.


----------



## Phil D.

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think the pictures clearly prove that the proper mode for the practice of immersion is much water and _nude_.


 
FINALLY, someone gets what I was really driving at!


----------



## steadfast7

Kevin said:


> A few thought after reading your article;
> 
> First, I have observed a couple of hundred baptisms in my life. In every instance of baptism by sprinkling or pouring the minister placed his hand on the recipients head, in no case of immersion have I seen the same practice. That has nothing to do with you specific point, but an interesting observation.
> 
> Second, "Superstitious" practices have been documented around the practice of baptism since early in the first century. Most famously the practice of using "living water" only, or baptising in running water. The use of baptismal pools to simulate the creekside expirience is well known. The additional practice of using large amounts of water for the same purpose, pouring out of shells, etc. So early practices are no failsafe guide.


Although we might in our day dismiss their views as superstitious, it does not dismiss the strong probability that the _procedure _was that of early Christianity. Yes, it is a bit of a leap that that practice was the practice of the Apostles, but that is an assumption that we make of all our ecclesiastical practices. Isn't it so that if there is any chance that that practice (independent of the theology behind it) is traced back to the apostles, we must look on that tradition with a certain reverence.



> Third, Assuming that these pictures do corectly depict the baptism of Jesus (an unproven assumption in my opinion), What baptism is this? Since St John would only baptise after he had been reminded by Jesus of the requirement of the Law to do so, the question remains which baptism? Jesus was baptised because of a specific OT baptism & the 3 possible options are the 3 High Preistly baptisms (oil, blood, water) what other OT ritual could be proposed that allowed for immersion?


 Again, what might have been believed about the significance of the practice is one thing, but what was done procedurally is another. In terms of baptismal practice, you might be viewing them as more different than what Scripture allows for.


----------



## Phil D.

Kevin said:


> A few thought after reading your article;
> 
> ...So early practices are no failsafe guide.
> 
> Third, Assuming that these pictures do corectly depict the baptism of Jesus (an unproven assumption in my opinion), What baptism is this? Since St John would only baptise after he had been reminded by Jesus of the requirement of the Law to do so, the question remains which baptism? Jesus was baptised because of a specific OT baptism & the 3 possible options are the 3 High Preistly baptisms (oil, blood, water) what other OT ritual could be proposed that allowed for immersion?



I certainly agree with the first statement, having deliberately made that very point in the OP.

As to the last point, I'm not sure things are quite that cut and dried. I have found that virtually all theologians and exegetes prior to the 18th century (ed. - i.e., that I have read - ed.), whether RC, EO, Lutheran, Anglican or Reformed (in the last grouping would be such men as Calvin, Ley, Featley, Venema, Chamier, the Westminster annotators, Lightfoot, Turretin, a'Brackel. Witsius, among others) either expressly affirmed, or clearly inferred that Jesus was baptized by immersion. I also know that Calvin specifically expresses doubt that the phrase "to fulfill all righteousness" is referring to a practice related to the Levitical law (_Commentaries_, on Matthew 3:13).


----------



## steadfast7

Willem van Oranje said:


> It must also be kept in mind that the Jordan River is not naturally deep enough to fully immerse an adult. In order to perform baptisms in the Jordan by full immersion in modern tmes, they had to build a deep tub into it to pool the water in one place.


 There was such a thing as the Jordan River at flood stage, during which one could hardly even walk across because it was so deep and torrential. What can be said with certainty is that the earliest baptisers sought a significant body amount of water to do their deed. We all know the classic argument regarding Philip baptising the Ethiopian eunuch; while presumably the royal entourage had a flask of water on them to perform baptism by aspersion, it was highly desirable to arrive at a body of water to step into in order to perform the rite.


----------



## Phil D.

Nova said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must also be kept in mind that the Jordan River is not naturally deep enough to fully immerse an adult. In order to perform baptisms in the Jordan by full immersion in modern tmes, they had to build a deep tub into it to pool the water in one place.
> 
> 
> 
> There was such a thing as the Jordan River at flood stage, during which one could hardly even walk across because it was so deep and torrential. What can be said with certainty is that the earliest baptisers sought a significant body amount of water to do their deed. We all know the classic argument regarding Philip baptising the Ethiopian eunuch; while presumably the royal entourage had a flask of water on them to perform baptism by aspersion, it was highly desirable to arrive at a body of water to step into in order to perform the rite.
Click to expand...


Like I said before, I think this line of discussion is a bit off topic, although I guess it has some relevance to the claim that the pictures in question show the baptism of Jesus (which was in the Jordan). So, as for the seasonal flooding of the Jordan River, that claim is of course directly confirmed in Joshua 3:15.


----------



## Marrow Man

Nova said:


> What can be said with certainty is that the earliest baptisers sought a significant body amount of water to do their deed.



Really? With _certainty_? Please explain how this "significant body amount of water" is present in the baptism of Paul in Acts 9:18 or the Philippian jailer and his household in Acts 16:33.


----------



## steadfast7

Marrow Man said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> What can be said with certainty is that the earliest baptisers sought a significant body amount of water to do their deed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? With _certainty_? Please explain how this "significant body amount of water" is present in the baptism of Paul in Acts 9:18 or the Philippian jailer and his household in Acts 16:33.
Click to expand...

 
Ok, "certainty" is a little strong. However, note that in those other baptisms, there is silence on the issue of whether there was a body of water nearby. So, there may or may not have been such a water supply. It would be wrong to conclude that there was none, or that a household baptism happened in a house! In the case of the Ethiopian, we have a positive assertion that a body of water was sought after and deemed acceptable. This is over and against the assumption that they had some water on their persons, which we are not certain of, admittedly. In the final tally, it's more likely the eunuch did have _some _water on him than that the others didn't have a lot of it. I think it's safe to conclude that where possible (and Didache concurs), a flowing body of water was preferred. 

sorry to digress from the OP Phil, but it happens...


----------



## Marrow Man

Nova said:


> It would be wrong to conclude that there was none, or that a household baptism happened in a house!



Why is this wrong to conclude? There is no indication in either of the two cases I listed that it happened anywhere but in the immediate premises. The text in both cases speaks to that -- to insist in either case that the participants left the place in question is to read something into the text that is not there. In the instance of Saul/Paul, it simply says he got up, was baptized, and then ate. In the case of the Philippian jailer, we can say with a great deal of "certainty" that it did _not_ happen that they left the house, since Paul is insistent that he will not leave unless the chief magistrates personally escort him out (Acts 16:37). The fact remains that in neither case is there any mention that anyone sought out a large source of water in which to be baptized.

With the eunuch, it is of course extremely probable that the group had some water on them. But they were on a _desert road_, so water was scarce. It is a providential blessing from God that they found any water at all (the expression by the eunuch in Acts 8:36 is one of surprise and excitement). Now there was no reason that he should not be baptized (v. 36 again). After all he had just read (and had explained) a text that mentions the Lord sprinkling many nations ...


----------



## steadfast7

Marrow Man said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be wrong to conclude that there was none, or that a household baptism happened in a house!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this wrong to conclude? There is no indication in either of the two cases I listed that it happened anywhere but in the immediate premises. The text in both cases speaks to that -- to insist in either case that the participants left the place in question is to read something into the text that is not there. In the instance of Saul/Paul, it simply says he got up, was baptized, and then ate. In the case of the Philippian jailer, we can say with a great deal of "certainty" that it did _not_ happen that they left the house, since Paul is insistent that he will not leave unless the chief magistrates personally escort him out (Acts 16:37). The fact remains that in neither case is there any mention that anyone sought out a large source of water in which to be baptized.
> 
> With the eunuch, it is of course extremely probable that the group had some water on them. But they were on a _desert road_, so water was scarce. It is a providential blessing from God that they found any water at all (the expression by the eunuch in Acts 8:36 is one of surprise and excitement). Now there was no reason that he should not be baptized (v. 36 again). After all he had just read (and had explained) a text that mentions the Lord sprinkling many nations ...
Click to expand...

 
Yes, there is no mention, so we need to defer to the instance where one option was chosen above another. As for the Eunuch, there's still the clear indication that they went into the water. If sprinkling was the preferred mode, they could have stopped, baptised with drinking water, and then refilled their flasks in the oasis. Now, if sprinkling was a sufficient mode, then we might have to charge Philip or some sort of superstition as to the efficacy of having a dip and getting all wet; which is entirely possible as well, I suppose 
It's also possible that households had large stone water jars, like the ones used when Jesus turned water into wine, something that someone could climb into and be immersed. 

At this point we're speculating, but my point still stands - they chose to get into a pool when they very likely had other options.


----------



## Marrow Man

Nova said:


> It's also possible that households had large stone water jars, like the ones used when Jesus turned water into wine, something that someone could climb into and be immersed.



Those waterpots held only about 20 gallons apiece (compare that with a large trashcan which is typically 33 gallons). It requires a great deal of imagination to suggest that someone could actually fit a body into a container that size and then have the body be immersed, dealing with narrowness of container size and water displacement in the process. Plus you've now likely polluted your only water source for the next week or so.

One factor that you have not considered with the case of the Ethiopian eunuch is water purification. That is still a problem in Palestine today (I had a professor who once studied at the University of Jerusalem; he used chlorine tablets that were dissolved into water in order to make it safe for drinking). Perhaps the water they carried with them was already purified, but if it were mixed with something like wine, that might make it unsuitable for a baptism. You say they could have simply filled up their containers again, but why would they do that if they knew nothing about the purity of the water source? Furthermore, if both went into the water source (which we have no idea how large or small it was, only that "some water" was there), then what happened to their clothes? Did they strip naked and then redress? The text says nothing about that. Philip was taken away immediately after by the Spirit. Did he leave soaking wet with soggy clothes and preach in that state? Seems unlikely. But we don't know, so it is foolish to continue to speculate. The one thing we do not need to speculate on is that a large source of water is mentioned in neither the case of Saul/Paul or the Philippian jailer; if we let the text speak for itself, it seems very clear that in both cases the baptism took place on the premises, and the presence of a large body of water is extremely unlikely.


----------



## Phil D.

Marrow Man said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be wrong to conclude that there was none, or that a household baptism happened in a house!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...With the eunuch, it is of course extremely probable that the group had some water on them. But they were on a _desert road_, so water was scarce. It is a providential blessing from God that they found any water at all (the expression by the eunuch in Acts 8:36 is one of surprise and excitement). Now there was no reason that he should not be baptized (v. 36 again). After all he had just read (and had explained) a text that mentions the Lord sprinkling many nations ...
Click to expand...

 
Alright, I guess I'm going to have to capitulate just a bit in terms of my efforts to curb the discussion here. 

As to the water situation with Philip and the eunuch, it seems there really isn't much need for us to wonder. Dr. William Thompson (1806–94), a famous Presbyterian missionary to Syria and Palestine, gave this firsthand account in a detailed documentary that he wrote about the region in which he lived and ministered for nearly half-a-century:



> He [Philip] would have met the chariot somewhere southwest of Latron. There is a fine stream of water, called Murubbah, deep enough even in June to satisfy the utmost wishes of our Baptist friends. This Murubbah is merely a local name for the great Wady Surar, given to it on account of copious fountains which supply it with water during summer. (_The Land and the Book_, [New York, NY: Harper & brothers., 1880], 2:310)



Also, the eunuch would most likely have been reading from the Septuagintal version of the Old Testament. In Isaiah 52:14 the LXX translates the Hebrew _nazah_ with the Greek _thaumazo_, which means “to be amazed or astonished,” rather than with _rhano_ ("to sprinkle") as it indeed does with the analogous prophecy of Ezekiel 36:25.


----------



## Marrow Man

That is fine. I am willing to drop the discussion, but you could have curbed this long before now when the erroneous "with certainty" comment was made earlier in the thread. At it stands now, you have chosen to "correct" me in the thread while not even addressing that part of the discussion. I would not have even commented had that been so patently incorrect of a statement. But you have chosen not to deal with that but with me instead. It makes you look extremely biased at best.

And in the future, please do not attempt moderate the moderator. Most of us are not going to take to that too kindly. I am sorry that your thread got derailed a bit, but that could have been handled much earlier instead of complaining at one side and giving a pat on the back to the other in the process.


----------



## Phil D.

Marrow Man said:


> That is fine. I am willing to drop the discussion, but you could have curbed this long before now when the erroneous "with certainty" comment was made earlier in the thread. At it stands now, you have chosen to "correct" me in the thread while not even addressing that part of the discussion. I would not have even commented had that been so patently incorrect of a statement. But you have chosen not to deal with that but with me instead. It makes you look extremely biased at best.
> 
> And in the future, please do not attempt moderate the moderator. Most of us are not going to take to that too kindly. I am sorry that your thread got derailed a bit, but that could have been handled much earlier instead of complaining at one side and giving a pat on the back to the other in the process.


 
Tim, I sincerely apologize if I in any way came across as disrespectful or vindictive. Nor was I intending to moderate you as a moderator. Not at all, brother. By "capitulate" I meant that I was admitting defeat in my previous (naive?) attempts to keep the discussion strictly to the topic of early baptismal art - in other words, I was saying it was OK with me if you all want to rabbit-trail a bit. I offered the two pieces of information that I did simply because I had come across them in my previous studies of the baptism debate. I meant them only as fodder for the discussion, not as a supposed trump-card or total vindication for one side or the other. Also, I posted my comments before I saw your remarks in #41, so they were not given as a rebuttal to anything you said there. For the record, I think some of the points you've reiterated about Paul's and the jailer houshold's baptisms are fairly good ones in terms of questioning whether or not immersion was always used. Again, my apologies for anything I may have done wrong in all this. And I'll try to be more aware of the way I must come across to people in the future.

Phil D.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Marrow Man said:


> n the instance of Saul/Paul, it simply says he got up, was baptized,



Not to mention the fact that it is very hard to be fully immersed if you stand up for baptism, i. e. get baptized while standing, as the Scripture plainly states that Paul did in Ananaias' house.


----------



## Marrow Man

Thanks, Phil. I apologize if I came across too harshly. I've said all I probably need to say about the two incidents in Acts (in which I was responding to another poster, as you have now stated, not trying to derail the thread), so I will let it go at that.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Nova said:


> As for the Eunuch, there's still the clear indication that they went into the water.



Is there a rule to determin when eis is used for "into" or "towards" 
and when ek is used for "out of" or "away from" ?

Acts 8:36 and they went down both into[eis] the water... "towards or to the water?"
8:39 And when they were come up out of[ek] the water... "away from?"

or is ἀναβαίνω enough to convey the common translation?

Note: I know virtually nothing of greek that is why I ask.


----------



## Phil D.

Pilgrim Standard said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the Eunuch, there's still the clear indication that they went into the water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a rule to determin when eis is used for "into" or "towards"
> and when ek is used for "out of" or "away from" ?
> 
> Acts 8:36 and they went down both into[eis] the water... "towards or to the water?"
> 8:39 And when they were come up out of[ek] the water... "away from?"
> 
> or is ἀναβαίνω enough to convey the common translation?
> 
> Note: I know virtually nothing of greek that is why I ask.
Click to expand...

 
Benjamin, I would probably describe my own knowledge of Greek as "only limited." I have, however, done a considerable amount of reading over the years in which I have seen discussions of this issue by a variety of authors. My impression from this is that, no, there is no hard grammatical rule that governs the use of the prepositions _en_ and _eis_. Most would say that their meaning must largely be determined by context. In that regard, most "neutral" and even pre-19th century paedobaptist exegetes that I have read conclude that when the overall context of the baptismal passages are considered, as well as the overall treatment of that topic in the New Testament, _eis_ most likely refers to a movement "into" the water, and _en_ denotes "in" - in which case a corresponding _ek_ would naturally mean a movement "out of". I could put together and post a collection of 6 to 8 such statements if someone is truly interested (although it would probably be a day or two before I could make that happen).

I might add that the most obvious indication of such a consensus is the fact that virtually every English Bible translates _en_ and _eis _as "in" or "into" when they are used in connection with water baptism. Of course collectively these translations reflect the prevailing view of literally hundreds of Greek scholars who worked on them over the course of five centuries. And yes, the conjunctive use of _katabaino_ and/or _anabaino _in passages like Matthew 3:16-17, Mark 1:9-11 and Acts 8:36-39 are strongly corroborative of such an understanding. It is primarily in highly polemical works on one side of the baptism debate that you will find this view questioned.


----------



## steadfast7

I apologize also for causing the tangent with my absolutist language of 'certainty.' Cheerfully retracted.

I think the position that seeks to dismiss baptism by immerision _altogether _by John, Jesus, and the Apostles cannot be made convincingly. It would not have been surprising if the earliest Christians would have wanted to mimic Jesus' baptism in a river, even if other modes were acceptable given the circumstances. We can surmise that early baptismal art seeks to portray the ideal, not the exception. This is common with religious art in general.


----------

