Eastern Orthodoxy on Baptizō and Baptisma

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think you answered your own quetion in this last paragraph. The issue is that, ceremonially, the person being ceremonially cleansed was not necessarily immersed. A thing may be immersed in order to perform the ritual rite - the sprikling of blood as an example. The rite itself was a cleansing rite.

My point simply had to do with how various renderings of the word baptizō are the best way to convey certain contextual connotations, even while one particular physical action is in view. So I’m not quite sure how that implies I unwittingly agreed with what you’ve been saying.

In terms of relating things to OT practice, yes, various procedures were used for various cleansings. Sprinkling, pouring, and bathing were each involved in certain circumstances. Does that mean the Old Testament people of God were free to mix and match at their own whim? No, of course not. Particular substances, mixtures, practices, sequences, and timing were meticulously prescribed for particular situations. And surely there was intention, purpose, worth, and duty in implementing each of these components as designed.

Nevertheless, I believe we must ultimately look to the NT to determine proper Christian practice. And in light of all the historical and linguistic evidence that has been presented, to somehow conclude that baptizō merely, or in essence means “to use water in whichever of several modes one may variously prefer” is simply, in my estimate, not credible.

This also brings to mind the time I personally witnessed a Presbyterian pastor administer baptism by touching his thumb to some water, and then lightly touching his thumb to the infant’s forehead. When later asked about this, tepid appeal was made to Lev. 8:22-24 (where the verb nathan—put; place—is used) to justify the practice (!?). Yet if a virtual any-method-of-applying-any-liquid-that-is-seen-in-OT-ritual-practice-is-also-good-for-Christian-water-baptism approach is taken, then it seems little objection can be raised.

Even when you're reading of someone washing themselves, would they not be "washed" by being next to a body of water.

I think a better question is, do we have any historical evidence (specific or suggestive literary descriptions) that people were ever taken next to (or for that matter, into) a body of water just in order to have it ceremonially sprinkled or poured on them? Not that I know of, at least not in Jewish culture. I know a few modern diehards claim this to have been the case with John the Baptist, but now we’re back having to implement unnatural exegesis to try and discredit evidence to the contrary.

For example, John 3:23. A simple, straightforward reading of this account would seem to be that it’s indicative of John’s baptism being performed by immersion—at least that’s what has been ascertained by virtually all non-anti-immersionist exegesis that I have ever seen. On the other hand, a few apologists (John Murray comes to mind) have posited that it merely indicates such a place was chosen in order to ensure that the great crowds coming to John’s baptism, and their accompanying animals, had enough water for drinking, and to perhaps have their sanitary needs met. Apparently, we are to further suppose making such basic provision wasn’t really possible elsewhere in Palestine (see, however, Deut. 8:7; 11:10-12).

Yet the following question must certainly be put to such a view: Is it really to be thought that it was out of a sense of providing domestic amenities, that the camel-skin-clothed, locust-and-honey-eating, voice-crying-in-the-wilderness, laying-an-axe-to-the-root prophet chose a place of abundant water, only to administer a baptism of pouring or sprinkling? No other Gospel account that involves a large gathering of people ever suggests that such domestic concerns factored into its given location. Yet in the lone instance where it is expressly stated that the very reason a particular place was chosen was in order to facilitate water baptism, and then explicitly provides the additional information this was because it was a place with plentiful water, we are supposed to believe that these naturally complimentary facts are, for all intents and purposes, only very secondarily, if at all related.

For one thing, such an interpretation never seems to have occurred to anyone outside of a relatively tiny parochial segment of the modern Christian church. So, again, this is what Schaff meant by unnatural exegesis of descriptive passages, like this one.

Do you supose, for instance, that Judith was going into the living spring, up to her head, in order to bathe and coming back soaking wet or having taken all of her clothes off with soldiers nearby?

This is a relatively old though, if I may say, not particularly well-conceived objection (or is it more of a jab?) that has been lodged by a few non-immersionists. But, yes, I do believe simply taking baptizō in its native and normal sense of immersion is both the most natural, and circumstantially the best-justified exegesis of this account.

It might first be noted that it is not entirely certain whether or not OT ceremonial bathings were carried out while completely unclothed. Rabbinic and Hebraist scholarship is divided on the matter. In any event, the Mosaic law doesn’t ever stipulate that these washings were to be performed in the nude. Still, in the event that such may have been the case, then the following facts relevant to Judith’s story certainly deserve due consideration.

1. Judith explicitly chose to perform her bathing at night, which is contrary to normal procedure for Jewish purifications (viz. the typical accompanying “…and at evening they shall be clean…”). If her state of dress in fact made it necessary to take steps to maintain modesty, then this timing would have gone a long way toward facilitating that need. At the same time, if maintaining modesty was indeed an important factor, then that very dynamic strongly militates against the procedure merely entailing a limited daubing, sprinkling, or pouring.

2. Upon Judith’s request, the commanding Assyrian general specifically ordered his soldiers not to hinder her activities, which by any reasonable standard would include, if necessary, protecting her personal privacy while she purified herself.

3. Why would Judith need to travel to a well or spring* at all, unless accessing a substantial amount of water was necessary for her baptizō? (*These terms can also carry the meaning of “a naturally-fed pool”—cf. the KJV’s rendering: “Thus she abode in the camp three days, and went out into the night into the valley Bethulia, and washed herself in a fountain of water by the camp.”)

4. Judith 7:3 specifically defines the parameters of the Assyrian camp: (NRSV) “They [the Assyrian army] penetrated the valley in the neighborhood of Bethulia, near the spring, and deployed on a wide front from Dothan to Balbaim and, in-depth, from Bethulia to Cyamon, which faces Esdraelon.” These geographical markers indicate the larger encampment was approximately 15 miles long and 4 miles wide, or covering about 40,000 acres. As such there were almost certainly areas within that were not densely occupied, if even occupied at all. As biblical geographers further observe, this particular area of Israel is relatively mountainous and well-watered.

It is also notable that one of the oldest Greek manuscripts of Judith (designated #8), and the two oldest non-Greek versions (the Syriac and Latin) omit “in the camp,” as a footnote in the NRSV alludes to (“other ancient authorities lack ‘in the camp’”).
 
Last edited:

Ah, Clement Francis Rogers. He was an Anglican deacon and Professor of Pastoral Theology at Kings College. About two decades ago I read an article that preceded and gave rise to the one you linked to (also entitled How did the Jews Baptize?; The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 12, 1911-12), along with several others that he wrote. So I took this opportunity to go back through my notes, and offer here a brief critique of the author…

Unfortunately, much of what Rogers had to say was simply specious. One example from How did the Jews Baptize?, is Rogers’ claim that the usage of tabal in 1 Sam. 14:27 controverts any idea that the word generally refers to a “full” immersion of something, because logically the entire rod wouldn’t have been submerged. This of course overlooks the obvious and elementary fact that only a specified part of the rod is said to have been dipped, namely, the end or tip of it (Hebrew qatseh; end, extremity; LXX akrov; end, extremity). And so on and so forth.

Otherwise the exposé primarily deals with Jewish proselyte baptism, the first explicit mention of which appears in the Babylonian Talmud (6th Century AD). As such it is of virtually no value in a discussion of NT Christian baptism. Scholars still hardly agree on anything with respect to the practice, from when it might have actually begun, to exactly what all might have been involved in the procedure. I’ve even seen an article that concludes the practice is probably more mythical than anything. Most others of course disagree (including myself), but this only shows the uncertainty surrounding the topic. Altogether, a very thin thread, indeed, on which to hang anything. Yet insofar as Rogers inserted it into the larger question, perhaps the principle reference to the practice in the Talmud is worth taking a look at—not in terms of deriving any practical support from it, but rather to observe a primary historical source and Rogers’ gainsaying treatment of it.

If he [a male proselyte] accepts all this [the requirements of becoming a follower of Judaism], they circumcise him immediately. ...Once he has healed, they immerse [tabal] him right away. And two Torah scholars supervise the process and instruct him on some of the lesser religious duties and some of the weightier religious duties he is incurring. He then immerses [tabal] and comes up [uelh; arise, ascend], and behold, he is an Israelite in every respect. (Seder Nashim, Yebamot, 47b)

As might be expected, Rogers maintained there is nothing in this passage to indicate that a complete immersion is in view, despite the unanimous consensus among Jewish scholars and Christian Hebraists alike that such is indeed the case. The general principle of what a personal tabal entailed in this era is quite explicitly detailed in various Jewish commentaries, like this one on Levitical bathings, though ignored by Rogers.

Wherever “washing of the flesh” [rahas basar]…from uncleanness is spoken of in Scripture, it means nothing else but the immersion [tabal] of the whole person [kal—all, entire – gaph—self] or object in an immersion pool [mikveh]. …And the same rule applies to others who are unclean—for even if a person has wholly immersed himself [tabal kal], all but the tip of his little finger [merosh etz'ba katan], he continues to be unclean. (Maimonides, Mishnah Torah; Mikvaot 1.2)

Anyone at all familiar with Judaism would realize that pre-conversion Gentile proselytes were deemed especially unclean (as in, "like a dead corpse," which is seen as the Father of all Uncleanness), and would certainly have been required to perform any ceremonial tabal in no less an extensive manner than natural-born Jews were.

As further concerns Rogers’ fitness as a scholar, we may also assess a book that he published in 1903, Baptism and Christian Archaeology. Here Rogers insisted that the myriad written accounts of baptism that come to us from the Early Church Fathers, which he admitted clearly describe immersion, should be read as only expressing “a mental ideal,” and not an actual practice. As for all those early church liturgies that specifically prescribe immersion, well, they merely “reveal to us what was aimed at rather than what was attained.” Further, this alleged failure of church leadership to reach a hoped-for goal, was probably due to their ineptness in overcoming “the popular will” of the laity.

These peculiar assertions were contrived from a prejudicial interpretation of select early Christian art and archaeology, which for Rogers offered overriding proof of how things were “actually done.” Extracting the “truth” from this allegedly supreme body of evidence included deeming any ancient baptisteries that weren’t large enough to allow “the candidate [to] stand with the water up to his neck or breast,” as having been unsuitable for immersion. Similarly, in discussing the ancient Stabian baths in Pompeii—which common type Rogers believed served as a model for many similarly constructed Western baptisteries—he insisted that even while the main pool is about four feet deep, “it is entered by two marble steps, and has a seat running around it at a height of 10 inches from the bottom. It was clearly therefore never more than half full, as no one would sit on a seat more than a few inches under the water.” Apart from the curious extrapolations as to how any of this might relate to the use and function of a ceremonial baptistery, apparently Rogers never heard of soaking one’s entire body in a tub, or public bath…

Rogers also contended that the Didache doesn’t allude to baptism by immersion in any manner, a notion that no serious scholar on that document concludes (see, The Didache in Modern Research; Brill, 1997). Rogers’ claims on this matter were soundly refuted by his contemporary, Dr. Charles Bigg, Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Oxford University, and others.

Frankly, Rogers was a disordered partisan with an apparent axe to grind. A veritable tsar of singular and unnatural exegesis of both literary and empirical evidence. It's amazing what tenure will do in terms of getting a person published. A seemingly embarrassed fellow Anglican reviewer implicitly concluded that Rogers’ strained analysis and eccentric conclusions in so many things baptismal, evidently resulted from a “judgment impaired by a haunting fear of the Baptists.” (The Church Quarterly Review, Vol. 58, 1904)
 
Last edited:
My point simply had to do with how various renderings of the word baptizō are the best way to convey certain contextual connotations, even while one particular physical action is in view. So I’m not quite sure how that implies I unwittingly agreed with what you’ve been saying.
I appreciate your note on Rogers. I'm not taking him as a sole source but merely to note some of the ways in which these ideas are applied.

I know, to you, it seems very obvious that there is some GNC to John being at the Jordan. It's so obvious that, what is not said, is actually so IMPLIED that any person wonder whether the point of this is to demonstrate that persons are being immersed is just being stubborn. In fact, to the Baptist, it appears that every time baptism is mentioned then the Presbyterian is just being exegetically stubborn to not see that some pattern in the NT or OT is being established such that a departure is exegetical and theological subbornness.

The poitn I was trying to make simply is that purificaiton and cleansing rites are varied. There is no single form in the OT. The OT prescribes the form of the cleansing rite. The NT does not prescribe the form of baptism. The Baptist wishes to use the word (and hidstorical usage) to insist that it does and that the Presbyterian is just being stubborn not to see the form as important as it is.

Finally, my point with Judith was illustrative in the sense in which you go out of your way to make sure we know that she must have immersed her body in order for the word to be used. I'm not sure. I just don't know. It's indefinite from the setting and the word itself doesn't seal the idea. For you it does. You cannot conceive fo someone using the term to convey that she stood near the living spring and used a cloth as she either stood near or in the water to wash her body. I'm not prescribing mode but you assume that the multiplication of words or arguments that make it plausible actually proves the case.
 
I appreciate your note on Rogers. I'm not taking him as a sole source but merely to note some of the ways in which these ideas are applied.

I know, to you, it seems very obvious that there is some GNC to John being at the Jordan. It's so obvious that, what is not said, is actually so IMPLIED that any person wonder whether the point of this is to demonstrate that persons are being immersed is just being stubborn. In fact, to the Baptist, it appears that every time baptism is mentioned then the Presbyterian is just being exegetically stubborn to not see that some pattern in the NT or OT is being established such that a departure is exegetical and theological subbornness.

The poitn I was trying to make simply is that purificaiton and cleansing rites are varied. There is no single form in the OT. The OT prescribes the form of the cleansing rite. The NT does not prescribe the form of baptism. The Baptist wishes to use the word (and hidstorical usage) to insist that it does and that the Presbyterian is just being stubborn not to see the form as important as it is.

Finally, my point with Judith was illustrative in the sense in which you go out of your way to make sure we know that she must have immersed her body in order for the word to be used. I'm not sure. I just don't know. It's indefinite from the setting and the word itself doesn't seal the idea. For you it does. You cannot conceive fo someone using the term to convey that she stood near the living spring and used a cloth as she either stood near or in the water to wash her body. I'm not prescribing mode but you assume that the multiplication of words or arguments that make it plausible actually proves the case.

I think it best to resist my usual impulse to give a point-by-point response here. I probably tend to overdo such things. I think I do agree with a seeming sentiment in what you've said (although you'll have to excuse my ignorance as to what GNC is in reference to - to me, it's simply where my wife and I source some of our daily supplements...). We appear to have a considerably different hermeneutic when it comes to evaluating things like this. For myself, I see detail as a useful method for getting to the bottom of things. This thread has largely dealt with word usage, and to me multiplying examples and scrutinizing the context of each is a good and perhaps necessary thing in reaching a sound conclusion. And, admittedly, I simply enjoy doing research and extensively writing about it...

Beyond that, I have always been intrigued by how differently people approach and process information, yet it is what it is. It's easy for each to see the other as simply being stubborn or contrarian. One should certainly never make an idol out of their own preferments, or what to them is the most beneficial approach. So I'm content to leave things where they are. We've created a record of ideas, of sorts, and hopefully folks who may come across it will be able to consider both sides on their own merits, and benefit as they may have need. As much as I like to expound on the topic of mode, I believe it is very much secondary compared to many other things in our shared faith. So in terms of our ultimately differing conclusions, I gratefully bow to the principe of Rom. 14:4. Pax.
 
I think it best to resist my usual impulse to give a point-by-point response here. I probably tend to overdo such things. I think I do agree with a seeming sentiment in what you've said (although you'll have to excuse my ignorance as to what GNC is in reference to - to me, it's simply where my wife and I source some of our daily supplements...). We appear to have a considerably different hermeneutic when it comes to evaluating things like this. For myself, I see detail as a useful method for getting to the bottom of things. This thread has largely dealt with word usage, and to me multiplying examples and scrutinizing the context of each is a good and perhaps necessary thing in reaching a sound conclusion. And, admittedly, I simply enjoy doing research and extensively writing about it...

Beyond that, I have always been intrigued by how differently people approach and process information, yet it is what it is. It's easy for each to see the other as simply being stubborn or contrarian. One should certainly never make an idol out of their own preferments, or what to them is the most beneficial approach. So I'm content to leave things where they are. We've created a record of ideas, of sorts, and hopefully folks who may come across it will be able to consider both sides on their own merits, and benefit as they may have need. As much as I like to expound on the topic of mode, I believe it is very much secondary compared to many other things in our shared faith. So in terms of our ultimately differing conclusions, I gratefully bow to the principe of Rom. 14:4. Pax.
It's not that I despise the care you take to lay out an argument or even the research. It is more that I don't think all "details" are germane to the question of how the conclusion is drawn.

I just completed the very dense book on Covennt Theology and the issue of mode just never really comes up. It's just not the way that Presbyterians are wired to look at this issue. It's ot that all the Pastors and teachers are ambivalent about syntax but that, in all their studies, they aren't convinced by the historical narratives that repor baptisms that how the people baptized were baptized. I wouldn't call it your obsession per se but i always found it funny that a Church I attended years ago in the Campbellite tradition rejected all forms of systemization and wanted to "speak where the Bible spoke" and leave many other doctrines ambiguous but were dead certain that people had to be immersed and spent their time articulating why that was the only acceptable mode.

I suppose that's why I find it curious when someone says that a Presyberian is engaging in "unnatural" exegesis when a "scene" in the Sciptures is ambigous about mode. Someone might argue that the Presbyterian is unwarranted in taking all the data in the Sctiptures about cleansing rites and sprinkling with blood, etc and arguing that they are unwarranted in concluding that baptism could ever be valid without immersion. Yet, that's where we are theologically and hermeneutical method means that one's overall theology ends up informing Biblical theology which means that this is taken into consideration in exegesis itself.

Maybe they exist, but I've just never seen Reformed communions "made to care" so much about the mode issue when the overall Covental theological schema is still intact. It's why I find it interesting that EO communions immerse adults and children and that it's possible that this is how the early Church performed baptisms. That the Western Church stopped immersions and were only made to "care" centuries after if (maybe?) fell out of use doesn't explain why the Church stopped "caring" when it happened or why it should now "care so much" based on lexical use, early practice, or even if the Apostles or Jews did it that way. Since the Scriptures provide no instructions on mode, it is hard for us to really see why it matters enough to disrupt the unity of the Body of Christ htat practice espcially since we also accept others who practice other modes.

Maybe it is, afterall, not frutiful to engage in a historical or syntactical "tit for tat" if we're convincedly ambivalent about the issue. In other words, there's no profit in trying to historically ground something that we can't prove by arguing that Judith couldn't possiibly have "immersed" outside or that the thousands at Pentecost wouldn't have fouled a water source. If we're ambivalent then we should just be content to say: "Well, maybe that's how they did it but since the Apostles left no instructions on mode, it's not clear to us that they either commanded this or that, even if they immersed, that the Church believed that the example was not prescriptive." It's sort of an edge issue fo us and I think Schaff is correct that the only reason we tend to get animated is when some are so convinced about mode that we feel the need to "begin caring" are react in unhealthy ways that belies the fact that we really don't care as much as we're letting on.

Thanks for the interaction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top