Did Immersion Flourish as a Mode of Christian Baptism due to Pagan Influences?

[Phil D.]

There is widespread agreement amongst scholars that immersion was the normative or general practice in apostolic and early patristic water baptism. It must be said that some of the most notable dissenters to this idea are respected representatives of modern Reformed scholarship. Within the former category, some that do acknowledge a general historical usage of immersion nonetheless suggest that the practice was likely influenced by pagan practices. Many of these are secular "critical" scholars, but not all. For instance, Dr. Hughes Oliphant Old (1933–2016; Professor of Reformed Theology and Worship at Erskine Theological Seminary) posited that immersion only came to its greatest prominence in the 3rd or 4th century, as the church became more and more influenced by various pagan religions.

Jewish proselyte baptism, from which Christian baptism developed, was administered by immersion. The immersion was probably intended to symbolize the completeness of the washing. Obviously Jewish proselyte baptism was not interested in symbolizing death and resurrection. ...While Jewish proselyte baptism and the religious washings of Qumran were undoubtedly done by immersion, there may well have been considerable diversity in the mode of baptism as it was practiced in the New Testament Church. We imagine that immersion was used normally, but on the basis of the New Testament it is hard to insist that immersion was the only form used.​

​

...If baptism by pouring was normal in the second century [1], how are we to explain that by the third and surely the fourth century immersion became the preferred mode? Once again, we would want to call to mind what was said about the desire of the late Classical Period to develop impressive Christian mysteries.​

​

When Christians began to see in baptism a dramatization of the death and resurrection of Christ, and began more and more to celebrate baptism at Easter, then the symbolic representation of the burial and resurrection became increasingly important. In this setting the dramatization of the burial and resurrection came to overshadow the sign of washing. It was the desire of the Church to make baptism a splendid Christian mystery which made immersion the general mode of baptism by the end of the fourth century. Immersion held sway for the next six to eight centuries.​

​

...Andre Benoit [1919–99; French Lutheran, in La Baptéme Chrétien au Second Siécle, 1953] has pointed out that in the second century we find no trace of the idea that baptism is a dramatization of the burial and resurrection of Christ. The idea seems to have first appeared as an interpretation of the sixth chapter of Romans influenced by the acquaintance of early Christians with the mystery religions.​

(The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century, 1992; 268, 272f)​

On the other hand, Francis N. Lee (Presbyterian), in his characteristically more strident manner, denied the use of immersion at any point of biblical history, and reckoned pagan influence was the sole factor in its occurrence in church history.

​

In Post-Patristic times, however, we sadly also find the increasingly sacramentalistic concept of total submersion. That—deriving from the 'magical' world of Greek and Oriental Paganism—then unfolded in Hellenized Post-Christian Judaism; in mediaeval Sub-Christian Ritualism; and also among maverick Modern Baptists.​

​

...That [the 4th Century] was, of course, a time when the Church was fast adopting a 'magical' view of the Sacraments—under the invading influence of neo-paganism! Biblical sprinkling was by then being replaced by ritualistic submersionism.​

​

...Baptism by total submersion is not a divine but a purely human institution. Indeed, it is a ‘tradition of men.’ ...For in Biblical times, baptism was administered solely by sprinkling. Such is the testimony of both the Older and the Newer Testaments.​

​

...Only from about 350 A.D. onward, did the deformation of sprinkling as the Biblical mode of baptism increasingly take root. This was the result of the influx into the Church of paganizing heresies in general, and of the submersionistic heathen ‘mystery religions’ in particular.​

(article, Sprinkling is Scriptural)​

These statements raise a number of important, even serious issues that deserve careful and informed consideration. I will attempt to do this under several sub-headings in segments to come, beginning with a look at the practice and symbolism of pagan water rituals.
_______________________________________

[1] Dr. Old's view that immersion was normal in the 1st Century, but that then pouring overtook it in the 2nd Century, with immersion then returning to dominance in the 3rd and 4th Centuries, is somewhat novel. It is largely based on a quaternary allowance for pouring given in a 2nd century church manual known as the Didache,* and the standard depiction of baptism in early Christian art, especially the 5th Century example in the Orthodox Baptistery in Ravenna, Italy (Ibid, pp.269–272). With all due respect, I believe Dr. Old’s interpretation of early Christian baptismal art as depicting a pouring is both substantively and conceptually mistaken. See here, and here. (edit - I can't get the links to stick, but if you do a PB search for 'Jesus baptism Ravenna' it will bring up a thread entitled "Jesus baptism." Then see posts #15 and #23.)

*Didache, 7.1-3 (late 1st or early 2nd Century - although a few date it as late as the 3rd Century)

Regarding baptism [baptismatos], baptize [baptisate (baptizō)] as follows:​

After first explaining all these points [catechism], baptize [baptisate] in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,​

in running water [en hydati zōnti].​

But if you have no running water, baptize [baptison] into [eis] other water;​

and if you cannot in [en] cold, then in [en] warm.​

But if you have neither, pour [ekcheon] water on the head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.​

​

Περὶ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, οὕτω βαπτίσατε· ​

ταῦτα πάντα προειπόντες, βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος​

ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι. ​

ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς ὕδωρ ζῶν, εἰς ἄλλο ὕδωρ βάπτισον· ​

εἰ δ’ οὐ δύνασαι ἐν ψυχρῷ, ἐν θερμῷ. ​

ἐὰν δὲ ἀμφότερα μὴ ἔχῃς, ἔκχεον εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν τρὶς ὕδωρ εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματο·​

 

[Phil D.]

The Practice and Symbolism of Pagan Water Rituals​

It is useful in this cultic context to start by considering a natural common denominator. On the most basic level, it is quite easy to appreciate, for rather obvious reasons, that water has been readily perceived and thus used as a symbol of cleansing and/or a conveyor of life-giving properties in numerous cultures and societies. As such, the fact that there may be considerable similarities between the water rituals employed by various religions is hardly surprising, as the historian Robert Robinson (1735–90; English Baptist) aptly reasoned.

It is allowed on all hands, that there is, and always was an evident similarity of religious rites, and that the temples of idols have some ceremonies resembling those of the church of God. ...[It is correct to say] that the similarity is merely accidental, or, to speak more like a Christian, that the rites of true religion among the Jews were positive institutes of God, and that the practice of similar rites among Pagans rose originally out of the exercise of common sense among the first fathers of mankind or out of positive institutes, which were debased afterward by their descendants into superstition.​

​

Of all religious ceremonies, that of ablution, or washing with water immediately before divine worship, is the most general, and the conformity the most obvious. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans and all Pagans had diverse washings. Descended from the same parents as the Jews, they originally worshipped one God, the God of Noah, Job, Jethro, and Melchizedek, and him they approached with clean washed hands, expressive of that purity of heart, which was necessary to his approbation of their service. Hence this exclamation, ‘(If I be wicked), though I wash [rahas] myself ever so clean...yet mine own clothes shall abhor me.’ [Job 9:30a, 31b]​

​

...There is no need to suppose either that the Jews imitated the Pagans, or that the Pagans imitated the Jews. It was natural to consider God, or gods, as a pure and holy being, and it was natural for a conqueror to wash off the blood of enemies from his hands after a battle, before he approached God to praise him for victory.​

​

...It is a just, and, it may be hoped, not an unseasonable moral reflection, that Pagan ablution was a sort of public homage, which natural religion paid to the purity and perfection of God, and an universal acknowledgement of the indispensable necessity of virtue in man, in order to his enjoyment of the first great Cause.​

(The History of Baptism, 1817; 48f.)​

Numerous mystery religions existed in the ancient Graeco-Roman world, including the cults of Dionysus (originated c.2000 BC), Eleusis (c.1500 BC), Orpheus (c.600 BC), Isis (c.400 BC), and Sarapis (c.300 BC). The group perhaps most prominent in the early Christian era were the followers of Mithras (c. 50 AD). All of these groups either thrived or survived to varying extents until the Christian emperor Theodosius I outlawed paganism in the Roman Empire, in 392 AD.

Accounts of pagan water rituals consistently indicate they were perceived as a means by which a supplicant was purified and so brought into greater favor with a given deity. In terms of the mode of application seen in these rites, the English author Harold Willoughby observed that a variety of methods were used.

Various ceremonies figured in the Mithraic liturgy which were calculated to induce this process of spiritual renewal. Among the most important were the ablutions which from the earliest times were prominent in the cult of Mithras. The ceremony consisted either of sprinkling as with holy water, or of complete immersion.​

(Pagan Regeneration: A Study of Mystery Initiations in the Graeco-Roman World, 1927; 159)​

Dr. Robert Wild (Roman Catholic) agreed that various modes of washing were used by Greek pagans, but reckoned sprinkling was actually the most common:

In Greek religion a variety of water ablution rituals were performed. The most common of these leads us to a class of facilities attested also at several of the known sanctuaries of Isis and Sarapis. Most sacred precincts in the Greek world had at their various entrances basins of lustral water called ‘sprinkling basins’ (perirrantesia). Those wishing to enter were first required to be sprinkled with water from one of these containers.​

​

...Such facilities were also in use in Egypt during Graeco-Roman times. According to Heron of Alexandria [c.10–c.70 AD], ‘In the temples of the Egyptians near the doorposts...are basins of lustral water (perirrantesia) so that those who enter may be sprinkled (perirrainesthai).’​

(Water in the Cultic Worship of Isis and Sarapis, 1981; 130)​

Here then are two brief examples where pagan authors wrote about such rituals in poetic verse.

The same pure wave swept three times round the companions,​

sprinkling [spargens] a light dew on them with a sacred olive branch.​

(Virgil, Aeneid, 6)​

Indeed, I have often brought ashes of a calf, and stalks of beans,​

in chaste purification [februa], in my full hands.​

Indeed, I have leapt the threefold line of flames,​

and had the wet laurels sprinkle me with water [misit aquas];​

The goddess, moved, blesses the endeavor.​

(Ovid, Fasti, 4)​

The 2nd Century pagan Roman author Lucius Apuleius wrote about an Isisian initiation ritual that incorporated both a bathing and a sprinkling.

At the time the priest had appointed, he brought me as part of a devout group to some nearby baths [balneas], and having first given me the customary bathing [lavacro], and having beforehand asked pardon of the gods, he sprinkled water all over me [circumrorans] and cleansed me [abluit] most purely.​

(Metamorphoses, 11.23)​

The German scholar Dr. Walter Burkert, a leading authority on ancient Greek and Roman religions, also addressed the issue of to what degree immersion was used, and the extent to which a notion or portrayal of a burial or resurrection was conceived within pagan water rituals.

There is a dynamic paradox of death and life in all the mysteries associated with the opposites of night and day, darkness and light, below and above, but there is nothing as explicit and resounding as the passages in the New Testament, especially in Saint Paul and in the Gospel of John, concerning dying with Christ and spiritual rebirth. There is as yet no philosophical-historical proof that such passages are directly derived from pagan mysteries.​

​

...It is appropriate to emphasize in this connection that there is hardly any evidence for baptism in pagan mysteries, though this has often been claimed. Of course, there are various forms of purification, of sprinkling or washing with water, as in almost all the other cults as well. But such procedures should not be confused with baptism proper— immersion into a river or basin as a symbol of starting a new life.​

​

...[The main evidence for ritual bathings representing a resurrection in the mystery religions] are some remarks of Tertullian about lavacrum in the cults of Isis and Mithras.​

(Ancient Mystery Cults, 1987, 101)​

These accounts, among others, would seem to call into question the objectivity of singling out the act of immersion in Christian baptism for unfavorable comparison with heathen practice. Tertullian’s statements will be contextually examined in an upcoming segment, but the next issue we will inquire into is the practice and symbolism of Jewish Proselyte baptism.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I blame the Jesuits...

 

[Phil D.]

The Practice and Symbolism of Jewish Proselyte Baptism​

The close, even genetic relationship that Dr. Old ascribed between Jewish proselyte baptism and Christian baptism remains a matter of some dispute. Admittedly, there does seem to be a significant consensus among many respected scholars that such a connection exists. [1] In any case, whether or not there was an allusion to death and resurrection present in the rite of immersing Jewish proselytes is a pertinent question.

The part of Dr. Old’s statement that a portrayal of death was not intended in proselyte baptism may be technically (and perhaps accidentally) true, but it misses a salient point: Gentile proselytes were deemed spiritually dead simply by virtue of their non-Jewish birth and heritage. As such, the state of being dead was a presumed pre-condition of the convert (as somewhat distinct from the concept of killing, or crucifying the old self/body-of-sin associated with Christian baptism, Rom.6:3, 4, 5, 6). Rabbi Jacob Neusner explains:

Among the sources of uncleanness, tangible and invisible, we begin with the gentiles and proceed to corpse-uncleanness and comparable kinds of uncleanness. As pointed out previously, the two—gentiles, corpses—form a single domain. The former bears the same uncleanness as the latter.​

​

A picture in cartographic form of the theological anthropology of the Halakhah [rabbinic law], indeed, would portray a many-colored and much-differentiated Israel at the center of the circle, with the perimeter comprised by all-white gentiles. For white is the color of death, how the unclean graves are marked off to warn priests and others concerned with cleanness. [cf. Matt. 23:27] Gentiles, like their idols, constitute a source of uncleanness of the virulence of corpse-uncleanness. What detail of the Halakhah embodies the principle that Israel stands for life, the gentiles like their idols for death? An Asherah tree [or, pole], like a corpse, conveys uncleanness to those who pass underneath it, so Mishnah, Abodah Zarah 3:8: ‘And he should not pass underneath it, but if he passed underneath it, he is unclean.’​

​

...When a gentile abandons idolatry and accepts the dominion of God exercised through His self-manifestation in the Torah, he loses the corpse-uncleanness that afflicted him, is immersed and transformed, and is as if newly born in the rite of immersion.​

(God's Rule: The Politics of World Religions, 2003, 29f)​

The Near Eastern cultural scholar Joachim Jeremias (1900 –79; German Lutheran) expanded on the idea that a passage from an existing state of death to a new life—i.e. a resurrection—was indeed a prominent theme in the Judaic scheme.

​

We turn now to a second fundamental doctrine of Jewish conversion theology. The theological interpretation of change of religion is formulated in the often-quoted proposition ‘The proselyte in his conversion (to Judaism) is like a newborn child.’ [Talmud, Yevamot 48b] This comparison (early interpreted in a juristic sense) of the proselyte to a newborn child had originally a purely religious meaning, and signified that the conversion to Judaism gave rise to a whole new life, a new creation.​

​

How old this doctrine is can be seen from the fact that as early in the pre-Christian Jewish-Hellenistic propaganda tract Joseph and Asenath [variously dated 200 BC to 200 AD] the promise is made to Asenath as she joins the Jewish community: ‘You will be renewed and recreated and will receive new life’; her conversion thus signifies renewal, new creation, restoration to life.​

​

This thought occurs again in the oldest rabbinic utterance about proselyte baptism, [Mishnah] Pesachim 8.8. [late 2ndCentury; see the following citation below] ...The change of religion is thus ‘a passage from death to life,’ a resurrection from the dead or a new birth. Correspondingly, it is stated that the proselytes are men who have ‘risen from the dead,’ [Midrash on Pesahim 8:8] and we meet with ‘the newborn’ as the name of a proselyte.​

(Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, 1960, 32f)​

The noted Jewish scholar Dr. David Daube (1909–99) also emphasized that the symbolism of rising from the dead was in fact an intentional theme in proselyte immersion.

...Their [the Rabbinic sect of the Hillelites] decision that ‘he who separates themselves from the uncircumcision [i.e. ‘heathenism’] is like him who separates himself from the grave’ [Mishnah, Pesachim 8:8.] followed the profound thought—doubtless earlier than Hillel [c.60 BC–c.10 AD]—that conversion meant a passage from death to life. ...The parallelism in form between the two parts of the maxim—‘he who separates themselves from the uncircumcision is like him who separates himself from the grave’—is striking: it suggests a parallelism in substance, an actual comparing of him who rises above heathenism to one who rises from the dead.​

​

The language is remarkable in another respect. Had the Hillelites thought in crude Levitical terms, the natural thing to say would have been that a convert was ‘like one who has touched a corpse.’ The phrase ‘like one who separates himself from the grave’ indicates that their starting-point was the idea that, spiritually, heathenism equaled existence in a tomb.​

​

...The figurative use of the word ‘dead’ to denote an unenlightened person is to be met with in most languages. It is adumbrated in the Old Testament, and existed in New Testament times: ‘Let the dead bury the dead.’ [Matt. 8:22; Luke 9:60] But the Hillelite concept of conversion as resurrection was, of course, something far more specific.​

​

...Let us remember that, for both of them [i.e. the Hillelites and their archrivals the Shammaites], the decisive moment in proselyte baptism was the ‘going up’ or ‘coming up’—no doubt because of its symbolical value. The relevant Tannaitic provision runs: ‘When he has undergone baptism and comes up, tabhal we‘ala, he is like an Israelite in all respects.’[Talmud, Yebamot 47b] ...The usual verb for ‘to go up to Palestine from abroad’ is ‘ala. ...As for Hillel’s interpretation of proselyte baptism as a passage from death to life—‘ala may denote ‘to rise from the grave.’​

(The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, 1973, 109f.)​

​

It is manifestly mistaken, then, to infer that Jewish proselyte baptism didn't prominently involve the ideas of death and new-birth/regeneration. The apparent difference between this cultic purpose and the primary meaning conceived within pagan water rituals is also striking.

In the next installment the concepts related to water baptism as expressed in some of the earliest Christian writings will be considered.

______________________________

[1] I was previously more skeptical of the co-apostolic era presence of Jewish proselyte baptism—as for one thing, not having fully realized the mention of it in the Mishnah [late 2nd Century; Pesahim 8:8, see below]. From what I have also learned, most Hebraists and Jewish scholars are accepting of the attribution of the references there to Hillel (d. c.10AD) and Shammai (d. c.30 AD). Still, even allowing for the elemental co-existence of Jewish, Johannic, and Christian baptism, trying to determine the possible influence of one on another remains a matter of speculative uncertainty (though the prospect does put an interesting light on Matt. 21:24, 25, 26).

Ultimately, whatever practical resemblances or cultural familiarity there may have been between various religious or cultic water rites in the 1st Century, those who accept and rely on the accuracy and authority of Holy Scripture are fully assured of this fact: Christian water baptism is an ordinance directly instituted, and thus in every important respect devised, designed, authorized and commanded by the One True God (Matt. 28:19).

Primary sources cited above:

[Joseph and Asenath, 15.4]​

From today you will be renewed [Gr. anakainisthēsē], and recreated [anaplasthēsē], and given new life [anazōopointhēsē]; and you shall eat the bread of life and drink the cup of immortality, and be anointed with the unction of incorruption.​

Ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης ἀνακαινισθήσῃ, καὶ ἀναπλασθήσῃ, καὶ ἀναζωοποιηθήσῃ, καὶ φαγεῖ ἄρτον ζωῆς εὐλογημένον, καὶ πιεῖ ποτήριον ἐμπεπλησμένον ἀθανασίας, καὶ χρίσματι χρισθήσῃ εὐλογημένῳ τῆς ἀφθαρσίας.​

​

[Mishnah, Pesahim 8:8b]​

With regard to a convert who converted on Passover eve, Beit Shammai say: He immerses [tabal] and eats his Paschal lamb in the evening. And Beit Hillel say: One who separates from the foreskin by being circumcised is ritually impure, like one who separates from the grave [keforesh minhaqever] after coming in contact with a corpse. [Consequently, he must first observe the seven-day purification process necessary to remove ritually impurity imparted by a corpse. Only then, from the eighth day onward, may he partake of sacrificial meat.]​

​

גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר בְּעֶרֶב פֶּסַח, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל אֶת פִּסְחוֹ לָעֶרֶב. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הָעָרְלָה כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַקָּבֶר​

​

[Talmud, Yevamot 47b]​

If he [a proselyte] accepts upon himself all of these ramifications, then they circumcise him immediately. If there still remain on him shreds of flesh from the foreskin that invalidate the circumcision, they circumcise him again a second time to remove them. When he is healed from the circumcision, they immerse [tabal]him immediately, and two Torah scholars stand over him at the time of his immersion and inform him of some of the lenient mitzvot [requirements] and some of the stringent mitzvot. Once he has immersed and emerged [tabal we‘ala], he is like a born Jew in every sense.​

​

קִיבֵּל — מָלִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. נִשְׁתַּיְּירוּ בּוֹ צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה — חוֹזְרִים וּמָלִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁנִיָּה. נִתְרַפֵּא — מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. וּשְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים עוֹמְדִים עַל גַּבָּיו וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ מִקְצָת מִצְוֹת קַלּוֹת וּמִקְצָת מִצְוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת. טָבַל וְעָלָה הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְכׇל דְּבָרָיו—​

​

[Talmud, Yevamot 48b]​

For what reason are converts at the present time tormented and hardships come upon them? It is because when they were gentiles they did not observe the seven Noahide mitzvot. Rabbi Yosei says: They would not be punished for their deeds prior to their conversion because a convert who just converted is like a child just born.​

​

מִפְּנֵי מָה גֵּרִים בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה מְעוּנִּין, וְיִסּוּרִין בָּאִין עֲלֵיהֶן — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא קִיְּימוּ שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת בְּנֵי נֹחַ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר — כְּקָטָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד דָּמֵי​

 

[Phil D.]

I blame the Jesuits...

Indubitably...

 

[Phil D.]

Practice and Symbolism in 2nd Century Christian Baptism​

So far, we have observed some considerable differences between cultic pagan and Judaic water rituals. The former was most usually performed by sprinkling, along with some bathings (in certain cases very possibly by immersion), and typically represented a purification or absolution. The latter was exclusively performed by immersion, and represented the separation of someone already dead from their tomb, into a state of life, with the overall concept sometimes described as a new birth or resurrection. The next logical question in this sequence might then be, how did some of the earliest Christians describe their practice and understanding of water baptism?

When we look at one of the timeframes that Dr. Old put focus on, the 2nd Century, and specifically with respect to the inference that the primary symbolism perceived in baptism was spiritual cleansing, there are only a few examples to consider. We have already taken note of the Didache, which prescribes immersion and circumstantial pouring, but as a manual of church practice does not address the perceived meaning or symbolism of baptism. But we can gather more information in such regard from two of the most descriptive baptismal passages from the 2nd Century, both of which (though wrongly), along with the Didache, were deemed canonical by a considerable number of early Christian communities. As such, they are believed to have had the widest distribution and didactic currency of any extrabiblical writings used by post-apostolic to 3rd Century orthodox Christians.

[Epistle of Barnabas, 11.8a, 9–11a; c.70–130 AD; PG 2:757f; theme - purification from sin and rising to eternal life]​

Let us further inquire whether the Lord endeavored to foreshadow the water [eis hydōr (of baptism)] and the cross. ...He says in one prophet, ‘The man who does these things shall be like a tree planted by the courses of waters, which shall yield its fruit in due season; and his leaf shall not fade, and all that he does shall prosper.’ [Psalm 1:3] ...Notice how He has described at once both the water and the cross. For these words imply, blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water [katebēsane eis hydōr]; for, says He, they shall receive their reward in due time: then He declares, I will prosper them.​

​

...Further, what says He? ‘And there was a river flowing on the right, and from it arose beautiful trees; and whosoever shall eat of them shall live forever [zēsetai eis ton aiōna].’ [Ezek. 47:12] This means, that we indeed descend into the water [katabainomen eis to hydōr] full of sins and defilement, but rise up [kai anabainomen] bearing fruit in our heart, and having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit. ‘And whosoever shall eat of these shall live forever’ [zēsetai eis ton aiōna].​

The main theme of Barnabas is that the Old Testament is in essence “Christian.” The stated intent of this particular passage was to show how the Old Testament prefigured both the cross of Christ and Christian water baptism. In doing so it employs an allegorical interpretation of certain Old Testament verses, a methodology commonly seen in patristic writings. No attempt was made to vindicate or explain water baptism via the New Testament (hence no mention of Rom. 6 et. al.). Still, it is notable that the meaning of baptism is portrayed both as the end of an existing sinful state, as exemplified when going down into the water, and the subsequent conveyance of a vital (fruitful) and eternal life, as exhibited when rising up from the water.

The next passage is from an entirely allegorical work that describes a series of parabolic visions, allegedly given to a freed slave named Hermas. Originating in Rome, it was written in Greek (as Latin did not supplant liturgical Greek there until the 3rd Century), and was early translated into several different languages. The personified “stones,” a central metaphor in the particular vision from which our passage comes, hearken to the symbolism in 1 Pet 2:4, 5. In this case there is a distinct theme that baptism represents being brought out of a state of death and into the obtainment of eternal life. While again no New Testament books are cited in the Shepherd, various commentators have suggested some similarities in the thematic baptismal symbolism of this passage with that found earlier in a letter of the Apostle Paul, that was likewise originally issued to a Roman audience.

[Shepherd of Hermas, 9.16; c.100–170 AD; PG 2:996; putting off deadness and rising to life]​

Explain to me a little further, sir, I said. What is it that you desire? he asked. Why, sir, I said, did these stones ascend out of the deep, and were then applied to the building of the tower, after having borne these spirits? They were obliged, he answered, to ascend through water in order that they might be made alive [eichon di hydatos anabēnai, ina zōopointhōsin]; for, unless they laid aside the deadness of their former life [tēn nekrōsin apethento tēs zōēs autōn tēs proteras], they could not in any other way enter into the kingdom of God.​

​

Accordingly, those also who fell asleep received the seal of the Son of God. For, he continued, before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead [nekros estin]; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and takes up life [apotithetai tēn nekrōsin kai analambanei tēn zōēs]. The seal, then, is the water [ē sprhagis oun to hydōr]: they descend into the water dead, and they rise alive [eis to hydōr oun katabainousi nekroi kai anabainousi zōntes]. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God.​

There are in addition to these passages a few other notable 2nd Century patristic works, though less disseminated amongst early Christians, that appreciably talk about or allude to the purpose and meaning of water baptism. They variously denote themes of purification, regeneration, and replacing death with new birth.

[Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61; c.156 AD; PG 6:420; regeneration, new birth]​

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us to where there is water and are regenerated [epeita agontai uph ēntha hydōr esti, kai tropon anagennēseōs] in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated [anagennōntai]. For, in the name of God, the Father...and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water [tō hydati tote loutron poiountai]. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ [John 3:5]​

​

[Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 86; c.160 AD; PG 6:681; purification]​

Our Christ, by being crucified on the tree, and by purifying us with water [di’ hydatos agnisai], has redeemed us, though plunged [bebaptismenous] in the direst offenses which we have committed, and has made us a house of prayer and adoration.​

​

[Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6; c.190 AD; PG 8:280f, 309; purification]​

But He [Christ] is perfected by John’s baptism [tō baptizesthai auton upo ‘Iōannou ginetai teleios], and is sanctified by the descent of the Spirit? Such is the case. The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became. When we are baptized, we are enlightened [baptizomenoi phōtizometha]. ...It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins [loutron men di ou tas amartias aporruptometha], a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation. ...Such is the union of the Word with baptism [ēn o logos echei pros to baptisma koinōnian], as the agreement of milk with water; for it receives it alone of all liquids, and admits of mixture with water, for the purpose of cleansing [epi katharsin], as baptism for the remission of sins.​

​

[Irenaeus; Fragments, 34; c.190–200 AD; Studia Patristica, 1975, 12:65; purification, regeneration, new birth]​

‘And dipped himself [ebaptisato],’ says scripture, ‘seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being dipped [baptistheis ekathaireto], but this served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean [katharizometha], by means of the sacred water [dia tou agiou hydatos] and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes [paidia neogona pneumatikōs anagennōmenoi], even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water [anagennēthē de hydatos] and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ [John 3:5]​

There are of course additional mentions of baptism from this period, but they are no more, and often less descriptive in terms of expressing symbolism or meaning. Ultimately, the idea that the symbolism of washing (purification) was dominant in the 2nd Century, as Dr. Old inferred, is not evident from these literary sources. Rather we find a roughly equal number of, and sometimes concomitant references to regeneration, and new birth or rising to eternal life.

Nor is there any discernable indication in these accounts that the normal 1st Century mode of immersion, such as was admitted by Dr. Old, was put aside in the 2nd Century—quite to the contrary. The widely disseminated patristic descriptions of going down into and coming up from the water are parallel to various Scriptural accounts of John’s baptism [Matt. 3:16, 17; Mark 1:9, 10, 11], Christian baptism [Acts 8:36, 38, 39], and as we have already seen, Jewish accounts of ritual immersion. The near universal comprehension of these kindred expressions (a relatively few modern partisan dissenters notwithstanding) reasonably understands a basic identity of practice.

Consequently, without necessarily positing any direct connection or dependence, or even coexistence, it is also apparent that early patristic concepts of baptism shared more commonality with Jewish proselyte baptism than with the water rituals of pagan mystery religions.

Historically, it is notable that all of the cited 2nd Century references which speak most to the meaning and symbolism of baptism were written in Greek, and all except the Shepherd of Hermas and Irenaeus come from the Eastern church. We only begin to encounter substantial Latin/Western church writings, including on baptism, in the early 3rd Century. This is certainly not to say there weren’t any such works, but they have not been preserved to us.

Having said that, it is in the inaugural portion of the 3rd Century that we find the first preserved instance of Romans 6:3–4 being directly cited in a patristic account of Christian water baptism, which is indeed in Latin. So, while Benoit’s observation, as noted by Dr. Old, concerning the non-use of this text in the 2nd Century is technically true (insofar as we have record of), such is “barely” the case. The following citation is from the adept North African lawyer and apologist Tertullian (c.160 –240 AD).

[Resurrection of the Body, 47; c.208 AD; PL 2:862]​

‘Do you not know, that as many of us as are baptized into Jesus Christ [in Iesum tincti*], are baptized into His death [in mortem eius tincti]? We are therefore buried with Him [consepulti ergo illi sumus] by baptism into death [per baptisma in mortem], that just as Christ was raised up from the dead, even so we also should walk in newness of life.’ [Rom. 6:3, 4]​

​

And that you may not suppose that this is said merely of that life which we have to walk in the newness of, through baptism, by faith, the apostle with superlative forethought adds: ‘For if we have been planted together in the likeness of Christ’s death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection.’ [Rom. 6:5]​

​

So, by a figure [or, ‘by simulation’—per simulacrum] we die in our baptism [morimur in baptismate], but in a reality we rise again in the flesh [resurgimus in carne], even as Christ did, ‘that, as sin has reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness unto life eternal, through Jesus Christ our Lord.’ [Rom. 5:21] But how so, unless equally in the flesh? For as there is death, there must also be the life after the death, because also the life was first there, where death subsequently was.​

Tertullian also provided a descriptive statement of how baptism was performed within his historical milieu, while noticeably using a verbal expression complementary to, and which is thus, in its overall context, seemingly further explanatory of the common phrases going down and coming up from the water.

[The Soldiers Crown, 3; c.210 AD; PL 2:79]​

When we are going to enter the water [aquam adituri], but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the administrator, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Thereupon we are immersed three times [ter mergitamur]...​

It is important to recognize that the Resurrection of the Body is an apologetical work against the common Gnostic heresy that the demiurge, the supposed god who created the world, was opposed to the supreme God. Attached to this was a belief of the inherent corruption and worthlessness of all things created, including the body of man, and the further assertion that no flesh could therefore rise again—rather, the soul alone was capable of inheriting immortality. As an apologetic, the natural assumption is that Tertullian was appealing to established concepts and practices to prove an orthodox teaching. Presumably, then, the perceptions he relied upon must have been commonly held, at least in the churches Tertullian was familiar with, well before the time he was compelled to invoke them here.

We can further notice that there is no hint that the “simulation” of dying/burial** was introduced or conceived as a dramatic reenactment in an attempt to compete with another supposed water rite, whether pagan or otherwise. Rather it was presented as a testimony of the meaning of a known practice, invoked in the course of an apologetic argument against a gnostic heresy.

In the next installment we will consider what is doubtless the most important and consequential matter in terms of answering the main inquiry of this study: Were early Christians aware of pagan cultic practices that resembled their own, whether in form or portrayal—and if so, what did they have to say about it? In other words, is it possible to let them settle the matter in question on their own terms?

---------------------------------------------------

* Tertullian’s use of the term tincti (imbue, dip—as in intinction) in translating a New Testament passage is both interesting and unusual, as Latin writers almost invariably render the Greek verb βαπτίζω with various inflections of the near transliteration baptizare, such as one finds in the old Vetus Latina and Vulgate.

** For reasons that are apparent, in this circumstance Tertullian emphasized the actual physical rising present in the act of water baptism, rather than directly expositing the concept of resurrection as part of its symbolic portrayal.

 

[Phil D.]

Patristic Writers and Modern Scholarship
on the Relationship Between Pagan and Christian Rites – Part 1​

Before looking at the crucial issue of what early Christians themselves had to say about the alleged influence paganism had on their religious rites, it seems important to first understand a related antecedent matter: Essentially the same charge has been levied against the Apostle Paul by a modern cadre of influential liberal scholars. That is, various teachings, concepts and doctrines that Paul expounds in the New Testament, prominently including the portrayal of baptism in Romans 6:3,4,5, have been attributed to his appropriation, whether consciously or otherwise, of pagan ideas and concepts into Christianity. Douglas Moo (b.1950; Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College), provides a brief outline and response to the accusation:

These ‘mystery religions,’ a group of religions very popular in the Hellenistic world, featured secret initiations and promised their adherents ‘salvation,’ often by participating in a cultic act that was held to bring the initiate into favor with a god. Under the impulse of the History-of-Religions movement early in this [i.e., the 20th] century, many scholars attributed various doctrines of Paul to dependence on these religions...​

​

But direct dependence of Paul on these religions is now widely discounted. ...More popular is the view that Paul’s Hellenistic churches interpreted their experience of Christ in light of these religions and that Paul’s teaching demonstrates points of contact with, and corrections of, this existing tradition. ...In this light, it is often thought that Paul is alluding to this kind of tradition when he introduces his teaching in [Rom. 4] verse 3 with ‘or are you ignorant?’​

​

However, even this indirect influence is not very clear, at least in Rom. 6:1–6. ...The very concept that is seen as the closest parallel between the mysteries and Paul’s teaching—syn Christo [‘with Christ’]—is rooted in Paul’s own conception of Christ rather than in the mysteries.​

[The Epistle to the Romans {NICNT}, 2018); 362f]​

The Dutch New Testament scholar Herman Ridderbos also commented on the matter:

For a time a relationship was sought above all in...the sacramental acts in the mystery religions on the one hand, and on the other the communion of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, connected by Paul with Christ’s death and resurrection.​

​

...Some have thought to find at least in baptism a fixed point of agreement, inasmuch as Paul related baptism to Christ’s death (burial) and resurrection (Rom. 6:3, 4; Col. 2:11ff.); and this ‘baptismal death,’ it is said, could not have developed from the Jewish symbolism of purification and therefore must be viewed as a ‘Hellenistic commodity.’ But it has come to be seen with increasing clarity that nowhere in the mystery religions is such a symbolism of death present in the ‘baptismal’ ritual.​

[Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 1997, 22f]​

Commenting in the abridged Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Albrecht Oepke (1881–1955; German Lutheran) likewise emphasized that the theological concepts which Paul directly connected to Christian baptism have no essential connection to pagan teachings.

Baptism is participation in Christ’s death and resurrection which effects a transition to the new creation, though translation into the reality of the present aeon [age] is still a task. Paul may well have taken over the current terminology of the mysteries here, but the content, i.e., the historical relationship, the eschatological new creation, and non-mystical justification, is very different.​

...Since the New Testament either coins or reserves for Christian baptism (and its precursor [John’s baptism]) a word [baptisma] which is not used elsewhere and has no cultic connections, and since it always uses it in the singular and never substitutes the term employed elsewhere, we can see that, in spite of all apparent or relative analogies, it understands the Christian action to be something new and unique.​

[G. Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1964, 545]​

Paul Tarazi (Eastern Orthodox) likewise pointed out the philological disconnect in the words used to designate pagan and Christian rites.

​

Not only is the initiation rite in the mystery religions never called ‘baptism’ in spite of the fact that it is referred to by a variety of names, but the noun ‘baptism’ (baptisma) itself—the technical term for the Christian sacrament—is not found outside the New Testament. And when the verb baptizō (to baptize) does occur outside the New Testament, it never refers to a liturgical rite. Both noun and verb are thus, technically speaking, part of a uniquely Christian vocabulary. Now, the meaning of baptizō is ‘to immerse,’ so it is safe to assume that if the early church chose this verb to speak of baptism, then that rite was connected with an act of immersion in water.​

[Galatians, 1999, 171f]​

By contrast, Greek-speaking pagans often referred generically to their water rituals as katharsis (purification), and those Latin frequently used the term lustrati (purification with water).

The charge that pagan influences continued to be imbibed by the early patristic church, particularly again with regard to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, is essentially an extension of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule—the German based History-of-Religions movement mentioned earlier by Dr. Moo. To be clear here, I do not know whether or not Dr. Old’s thinking in this area is directly derived from this particular school of thought, but his conclusions are plainly comprised of some kindred, though now widely discredited suppositions. (I have not directly engaged with F. N. Lee's assertions as so many of them are simply over-the-top and quite obviously disprovable.)

Turning then to what early orthodox Christians themselves had to say, we might start by noting that in their apologetical writings patristic writers often insisted that even foundational pagan concepts and philosophies were derived from the Old Testament. This theme is interwoven throughout two of Clement of Alexandria’s three preserved works, Protrepticus (Exhortation) and Stromata (Miscellanies). The afore-cited Justin Martyr gives us the first preserved instance of the patristic belief that pagans had conceptually co-opted their cultic water cleansings from Christian baptism, albeit he attributed the means of their having done so to a foretelling of baptism in the Old Testament. He also went on to charge them with imitating the Lord’s Supper.

[Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61, 62, 66; c.156 AD; PG 6:420ff]​

[That they] may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe…and in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed [louetai].​

​

–And the demons [daimones], indeed, having heard this washing [loutron] announced by the prophet [Isaiah 1:16], induce those who enter their temples and are about to worship them, to perform libations and burnt-offerings and sprinklings [rantizein], while at the outset they cause them to bathe themselves [louesthai] before they enter into the shrines where their images are set.​

​

...For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, called the Gospels, have delivered to us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, ‘This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body.’ Having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, ‘This is My blood;’ and gave it to them alone. Yet the onerous demons [ponēroi daimones] have imitated [mimēsomenoi] this in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done, in that bread and a chalice of water are featured, with certain incantations, in the mystic rites of those who are being initiated. This you already know, or can learn of.​

Here Justin drew at least a conceptual linkage between Old Testament, Christian, and pagan ritual washings, while clearly giving effectual (though not chronological) precedent to the initial two. While Justin mentions both sprinkling and bathing in the context of pagan practice, he always described Christian baptism as a complete washing or bath (loutron). To be sure, Justin's accusation does nothing to factually prove that pagans were plagiarizing from the Old Testament or Christianity, but it does speak to the underlying issues of patristic perception and motive.

In the next segment we will examine what the church father Tertullian—who wrote by far the most on baptism of any pre-Nicene churchman—had to say on our topic, and draw some finishing conclusions.

 

[Phil D.]

Patristic Writers and Modern Scholarship
on the Relationship Between Pagan and Christian Rites – Part 2​

Tertullian was the first patristic writer to extensively treat of baptism, including having written the first discourse dedicated solely to that topic. As such, he provides a particular wealth of information, although we will only be able to scratch the surface here. Following in Justin’s footsteps, Tertullian wrote a number of scathing criticisms of pagan cleansing rituals, and denounced them as useless counterfeits of Christian baptism. [1]

[Tertullian, On Baptism, 5; c.198 AD; PL 1:1204f]​

‘But,’ you object, ‘the gentiles [or, pagan nations—nationes], strangers to all understanding of spiritual things, ascribe power of equal efficacy to their idols [potestatem eadem efficacia idolis].' But they tell themselves lies, for their waters are barren [sed viduis aquis]. In certain sacred rites they are initiated by means of a washing [per lavacrum initiantur] so as to belong to Isis, or perhaps Mithras. They even carry their gods out in procession for ritual washings [lavationibus], and ritually purify their country villas and town houses, their temples, and whole cities, by carrying water about and sprinkling them [aspergine circumlatae aquae].​

​

Moreover, at the Apollinarian [Rome] and Pelusian [Egypt] games they are immersed [tinguuntur], and suppose they are doing so with a view to regeneration [regenerationem] and release from their broken oaths. And because cleansing is but a natural property of water [natura aquae quod propria sit abluendi], they must seek favor of an idol to be the agency of purification [auspici emundationis]—how much more truly, then, shall water convey that benefit by the authority of the God by whom every one of its attributes has been appointed?​

​

...Here too we observe the devil's zeal in hostility to the things of God, in that he emulates us and practices baptism among his own [aemulantis cum et ipse baptismum in suis exercet]. But is it the same [quid simile]? Does the unclean make clean, the destroyer set free, the condemned acquit? If so, he will be pulling down his own work, and washing away the offenses he himself inspires [diluens delicta quae inspirat ipse]. I have set down these words for a testimony against those who reject the faith, in that they give too little credence to the things of God, while giving credit to attempts to reproduce them [apud aemulatorem] made by God's enemy.​

Tertullian makes no statement of chronology here (or reference to the Old Testament), but presumably would have known that the two pagan festival/games he mentioned both predated Christianity. This suggests that by “emulation” is meant a counterfeiting of timeless and legitimate sacred ideas and purposes, which are only truly realized in Christian baptism. The commonality of concepts noted (based on the natural cleansing and life-giving properties of water), were that of purification, and in two instances of ritual immersion, supposed regeneration. In view of Tertullian’s own various descriptions of Christian baptism, the latter cases presumably had the most in common with the early Christian rite.

In a subsequent apologetic Tertullian expanded the examples of pagan rites that he perceived to be at least conceptual copies of Christian practices, beyond just baptism. Added to the list was the “religious offering of bread,” a plain contrast to the Lord’s Supper, “marking the forehead,” presumably in juxtaposition to something like making the sign of the cross, and, seemingly, the special honor early Christians bestowed upon their martyred brethren. As such, in this context he apparently used the term sacrament in its more general sense of a religious sign or ceremony that has either sacred or mystical significance.

[Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, 40; c.204 AD; PL 2:66f]​

The question will arise, who interprets these things in a sense that makes for heresies? The devil, of course [A diabolo scilicet], for it is his way to pervert the truth, and it is he who also emulates the divine sacraments by the mystic rites of his idols [qui ipsas quoque res sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis aemulatur].​

​

As such he dips [tingit] some—that is, his own believers and faithful followers—and promises a putting away of their offenses by the washing [expositionem delictorum de lavacro repromittit]. And if memory still serves me, Mithra likewise sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers, and celebrates also the religious offering of bread [celebrat et panis oblationem], and introduces the likeness of a resurrection [et imaginem resurrectionis inducit], and redeems with a crown those under the sword [et sub gladio redimit coronam].​

​

...Since, therefore, he [Satan] has shown such a transference [transferens] in his great aim of expressing in his idolatry those very things of which consists the administration of Christ’s sacraments [ipsas res de quibus sacramenta Christi administrantur], it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon,and succeeded in adapting [et idem] to his profane and rival creed the very instruments of divine matters and of the Christian saints [et potuit instrumenta quoque divinarum rerum et sanctorum christianorum]—his interpretation from their interpretations, his words from their words, his parables from their parables [sensum de sensibus, verba de verbis, parabolas de parabolis].​

While not a certainty, in context it seems the connection most likely intended with the noted “likeness of a resurrection” had to do with the perceived symbolism of rising from an immersion, especially when we consider Tertullian’s explanation of the baptismal rite in Resurrection of the Body (as shown in a previous segment). In any case, there is nothing evident in Tertullian’s corpus, or that or other patristic writers, where another ritual was ascribed that signification.

Tertullian also leveled his accusations of cultic mimicry against the Gnostics, by way of Menander, reputed to be the protégé and apparent successor to the much-despised 1st century sorcerer Simon Magus (cf. Acts 8:9).

[Tertullian, The Soul, 50; c.210 AD; PL 2:734]​

The insane assertion [conspuatur furor] of the Samaritan heretic Menander is also rejected, who will have it that death not only has nothing to do with his disciples, but in fact never reaches them. He pretends to have received such a commission from the secret power of One above, that all who partake of his baptism [baptisma] become immortal, incorruptible, and are instantaneously invested with resurrection-power [et statum resurrectioins compotes fiant].​

​

...Indeed, for the most part heresies spring hurriedly into existence from examples furnished by ourselves [Fere enim haereses ad nostra exempla prosiliunt], procuring a defensive bastion from the very place they attack [inde sumentes praesidia quo pugnant]. The whole question resolves itself in short into this challenge: Where are to be found the men whom Menander himself has purified [perfudit]? —whom he has submerged in his [River] Styx [quos in stygem suam mersit]. Let them come forth and stand before us those apostles of his whom he has made immortal.​

It bears repeating that in and of themselves neither Justin’s or Tertullian’s claims historically establish that pagans in fact plagiarized Christian (or Old Testament) concepts and practices—although that was certainly the case among contemporaneous Gnostics. But they do provide substantive grounds for understanding that the early church held particular beliefs and practices based on their own terms. The authority appealed to with specific regard to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, at least with respect to their foundational aspects, were the prophetic announcements of the Old Testament and/or the precepts of the New Testament. In Tertullian’s case, this revelatory warrant extended to the manner in which baptism was performed.

[Tertullian, Against Praxeus, 26; c.215 AD; PL 2:190]​

After His resurrection, He pledged to His disciples that He would send them the Promise of the Father [Luke 24:49; John 14:16, 17]. And lastly, He commanded them to baptize [et novissime mandans ut tinguerent] into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost [Matt. 28:19]—not into only one of these [non in unum]. Therefore, not only once, but three times [nam nec semel sed ter] we are immersed [tinguimer], at the mention of each name and into each of the persons [ad singula nomina in personas singulas].​

None of this is to deny that over the centuries the church at large made many of its practices, including the ceremonies surrounding the central actions in baptism and the Lord’s Supper, increasing impressive to the physical senses, and attached to them more and more mystical concepts. That is historically self-evident, most especially following the legalization and then institutionalization of Christianity in the 4th Century, extending through the medieval period. Yet, in the estimate of the liturgical scholar Edward Yarnold (1926–2002; Professor of Classical History at Oxford University), one can observably distinguish between the core rite of baptism, which in itself seems to have been “hardly influenced” by the pagan mystery religions, and the explanation assigned to it and certain added ceremonies, which increasingly emphasized elements of “mystery and fear.” (The Awe-inspiring Rites of Initiation, 1994, 66)

Perhaps most important to our inquiry, this evolution of elaboration mostly occurred only after we have positive evidence of the historically dominate understanding of Romans 6:4f, as pertains to baptismal practice and symbolism. As was previously shown, Tertullian was the first known writer to express that comprehension—though in a simple prosaic manner—while also being in the vanguard of those whose writings help refute the idea that pagans had any substantial influence on early Christian baptismal practice. Tertullian in fact extolled the simplicity of the central baptismal rite in his day—and in the process again made obvious the natural implication of the ubiquitous phrasing, going-down/coming-up.

[Tertullian, On Baptism, 2; c.198 AD; PL 1:1201f]​

There is indeed nothing that so hardens men’s minds as the simplicity of God’s works as they are observed in action [in actu videtur], compared to the magnificence promised in their effects. It is so in this case [baptism] as well, because in such simplicity [tanta simplicitate], without any pomp or novel trappings [sine pompa sine apparatu novo aliquo]—and, not least, without payment [denique sine sumptu]—a man goes down into the water [homo in aqua demissus], and with a few words said, is dipped [et inter pauca verba tinctus]—but then coming up again no cleaner than before [vel nihilo mundior resurgit], his consequent attainment to eternity is thought unbelievable [eo incredibilis existimatur consecutio aeternitatis].​

Tertullian also lauded the sanctifying attributes of any ordinary water whenever it was purposed for Christian baptism, no matter how ordinary or informal the setting.

[Tertullian, On Baptism, 4; c.198 AD; PL 1:1203f]​

Consequently it is of no matter whether a man is washed [diluater] in the sea or a pond [est mari quis an stagno], a river or a pool [flumine an fonte], a lake or a trough [lacu an alveo], and there is no difference between those whom were dipped by John in the Jordan and those whom Peter dipped in the Tiber [eos quos Ioannes in Iordane et quos Petrus in Tiberi tinxit].​

We might also consider the claim that immersion eventually returned to modal domination because baptism began to be used as “a dramatization of the burial and resurrection of Christ.” But even conceptually that is not quite the case—or the statement at least needs some clarification. Baptism was seen, among other things, as embodying the believer’s unification with Christ, through a death and resurrection like His—a theological paradigm that Romans 6:5 teaches explicitly. Emulation of this union was then seen as being figured in the act of water baptism. This holds true not only for Tertullian, but later church fathers as well. Yet nowhere does one get the sense from patristic writings—virtually the sole historical source on the matter—that the early church employed a dramatization of death and resurrection in baptism in an attempt to match or outdo other religions.

Theologically, the temporal aspects of the sacraments inherently have an aspect of sensory portrayal. That is one of their intended purposes—to serve as a sensible sign of a spiritual truth (cf. HC 73, WLC 163). Nor, for that matter, did the patristic comprehension of the relationship between apostolic practice and symbolism in Rom. 6:4 substantially differ from that perceived by some of the most notable liturgical minimalists, such as Calvin and many of the Puritans. Neither should it be unexpected or objectionable if one of the sacraments has been historically understood, among other things, as unitedly hearkening to believers’ mediated inclusion in the very central truths of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:3,4).

It did so happen that eventually some church fathers gave the practice of immersing three times the numerical significance of representing the three days that Christ lay in the grave, but that connection is rather ancillary. Moreover, Tertullian, among others, gave the exercise of triplication a Trinitarian theme—which some see as implicit in the Didache as well. So triple immersion on that basis was clearly in place well before greater sacramental elaborations or ostensible dramatizations were introduced.

It is also noteworthy that while many church fathers subsequent to Tertullian (4th and 5th Centuries) frequently cited Romans 6:3-5 in their baptismal discourses, and uniformly ascribed it the same meaning, it was not appreciably emphasized over other doctrinal points, or even the central theme in most of those accounts. With regard to citing scripture, it seems John 3:5 tended to dominate. Nor was the theme of death/burial/resurrection necessarily predominate in baptismal liturgies of that era, with at least equal attention being given to other ideas like spiritual cleansing. Immersion was consistently treated as the organic and ordinary Christian practice. (See, E. Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 2013, passim.)

For a final appraisal of the claim that patristic baptismal practice was influenced by paganism, we provide the following synopsis by Dr. Fritz Graf (b.1944; Distinguished Professor of Classical Philology at Ohio State University).

​

Neither [the perceptions expressed by] Justin nor Tertullian justify the modern focus on mystery initiations as crucial antecedents of Christian baptism in its ritual form or its theological content. In their own indigenous readings, the pagan rituals that imitated baptism were purificatory rituals, and mystery cults could be associated simply because they contained rituals that cleansed human beings to make them fit for their encounter with the divine, as do the rituals listed by Justin that precede the entrance into a shrine. Justin reflects a contemporary discussion between Christians and pagans who noticed the similarities between pagan and Christian rituals and agreed on their existence but could not agree on their explanation.​

​

Pagans used the similarities to contest the uniqueness of Christianity on which the Christian refusal to participate in pagan cult was based, whereas Christians underlined the revelatory character of their rites and thus argued with imitations by demons; this argument makes sense only if it is used to refute pagan observations on the similarities of rituals. Tertullian follows in the wake of this discussion; without entering into it in detail, he simply rejects the efficacy of the pagan rituals that have been compared to baptism. Thus, this discussion and its underlying perception of contemporary ritual practice is irrelevant for the modern discussion about the origins of baptism or of any other Christian ritual.​

​

...The radical view, attributed to the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, has been discussed and refuted so often that little remains to say. The main argument against it is the simple fact that the ritual baths or ablutions that are attested in some but by no means all mystery cults usually have a very different function from that of the baptismal bath. As in the case of the Isis mysteries discussed above, the washing, ablution or bath is a preliminary rite that serves to prepare the novice for the main rite whose core was the encounter with the divine.​

​

...In baptism, however, the very bath and its accompanying verbal rites performed the radical change of personality that turned a pagan into a Christian; the bath and prayer thus was the core rite. None of the major mystery rituals—of Eleusis, of Isis, or of Dionysos, on which the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule relied—contained a ritual bath in such a position and function; none could have served as model and antecedent of Christian baptism.​

[Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, 2011, 110f]​

The Christian church has never been immune from the influences of harmful external forces. Imbibing the thinking and actions of the unbelieving, and even “religious” world around it has always been, and still remains a hazard to furthering the Kingdom of God on earth. Yet in light of the evidence (or lack thereof), it is only right and just that the early church (and existentially those who have followed in its footsteps) be exonerated of the arbitrary charge that linking immersion in baptism with Romans 6 was somehow influenced by non-biblical effects, or historically evolved from a carnal competition with paganism.

FINIS​

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] In most cases I have used or slightly adapted the translations found in Schaff’s Ante-Nicene Fathers, or the newer renditions by Ernest Evans, and have likewise followed their course (at least in most cases) of rendering the Latin tingo and its derivatives as dip or immerse. One could also translate it baptize, although in context the act of immersion is philologically transumed.

[Gerhard Vossius; 1577–1649; Dutch linguist and theologian]​

Both baptō and baptizō are rendered by mergo or mergito, and this is also carried over to tingo [Etsi autem βάπτω & βαπτίζω tum mergo, vel mergito, tum tingo transferri]; mergo denotes the proper meaning, as does tingo by metalepsis [proprie tamen mergo notat, & μεταληπτικώς, tingo]; the latter conveys the dyeing in immersion, because this is done by immersion [posterior est immersione tinctura: quia haec immersione sit].​

(Etymologicon Linguae Latinae, 1662, 62)​

​

[Hugo Grotius; 1583–1645; Dutch jurist, philosopher and linguist]​

The Latin tingendi both properly and in its general usage has the same meaning as mersare [Latine tingendi vox et proprie et plerumque idem valeat quod mersare].​

(Annotationes in libros Evangeliorum, 1641, 42)​

The definition given by this much earlier witness well-captures the dual implication in the ecclesiastical usage of tingo.

[Rabanus Maurus; c.780–856; French Benedictine theologian and linguist]​

Baptismus, from the Greek Baptisma, which in Latin is rendered tinctio [Baptisma, βάπτισμα Graece, Latine tinctio interpretatur]. It is called tinctio [tinctio dicitur] not simply because man is immersed in water [quod homo in aquam mergitur], but because by the Spirit of Grace he is changed for the better, and is made into something far different than before.​

(De Catechismo et Sacramentis Divinis, 4; PL 112:1219)​

Of further note in this area, Tertullian’s fellow Carthaginian, Cyprian (210–58 AD), differentiated between a washing, or bathing (loti), and sprinkling or pouring (aspargi vel perfundi) [Epistles, 75.12 - To Magnus, on Baptizing the Novatians; PL 3:1147]. A century later, Augustine characterized Cyprian’s statements as denoting the difference between dipping and pouring (tinctorum et perfusorum) [On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 6.7.10; PL 42:202]. For historical reference, this discussion concerned the normative mode of baptism, and the abbreviated means (compendia) used for baptizing bedridden people.

---

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I'm not really researched on this area, but I would just say that by reading the Bible alone, immersion seems to make the most sense, and was probably the norm. I would imagine the Christian tradition just kept with their biblical heritage.

 

[Phil D.]

In the OP I described Rev. Francis Nigel Lee as "characteristically strident." In retrospect I don't think that was probably the best descriptor. I know he is respected by many here, and I should have chosen my words more carefully. "Overexuberant," and that with particular regard to the subject of baptism, better fits even my own estimate of the man. Of course as a baptist I disagree with his conclusions, and accordingly have issues with his scholarship on the topic of baptism, which in some respects is definitely outside of the mainstream. But I also recognize that his writings on baptism were generally in response to baptist writers who at times exhibited their own overexuberances. I have only browsed FNL's writings on other matters, so I have no particular opinion on those. Anyway, my apologies if I offended anyone, and I certainly do not want to impugn his reputation in any way.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I still blame the Jesuits.

 

[Phil D.]

I still blame the Jesuits.

Sure, Jesuits were fascist, kind of like... oh, never mind...

 

[MilitaryBrat2007]

bUt ThE gReEk WoRd FoR 'bApTiZe' MeAnS 'iMmErSiOn'

Quite stupid how it is. I was baptized by immersion, but I will never ridicule other modes of baptism (i.e. sprinkling, pouring).

 

[Phil D.]

bUt ThE gReEk WoRd FoR 'bApTiZe' MeAnS 'iMmErSiOn'

Quite stupid how it is. I was baptized by immersion, but I will never ridicule other modes of baptism (i.e. sprinkling, pouring).

Sorry, I'm not seeing how any of this relates to the historical focus of this thread.