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]

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.]

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.]

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.

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 ----------

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]

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.

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.]

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.

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.

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]

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.]

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.

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]

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.]

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.

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]

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.]

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.

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 ----------

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]

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.]

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]

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.

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.]

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.

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.

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]

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.]

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.

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]

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?