Talk:Baptism/Archive 3

baptism by Jesus (again)

"According to the The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, this passage confirms the central place of baptism in Jesus' message. The Cambridge Companion further states that the initiatory baptism of Jesus and the requirement to "repent and accept baptism" in earliest Christianity were further evidence of baptism's central place in the "good news".[14]" This is pretty dubious. Can we get an actual quote from this source? The first sentence makes no sense. These verses are the only evidence anywhere that Jesus baptized, so they can't "confirm" anything, only assert it. It would take a second piece of evidence for a confirmation. The second sentence is also slippery. It's true that baptism in earliest Christianity was central to the good news, but are we talking here about Jesus' own good news or the good news that his followers carried on after he died? As it is, the sentence is ambiguous. I don't think Jesus baptized, but I can't disagree with this second sentence because it doesn't actually say that baptism was central to Jesus ministry. So here's the only historical source claiming that Jesus baptized, and it's iffy, so can we get a quote? Leadwind (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So I bought Theissen & Merz, and guess what they say: Jesus didn't baptize. In fact, he preached repentance independent of baptism. Now we have four sources saying that Jesus, historically speaking, did not baptize, we have three gospels that agree, and we have one section in John that says, not so fast, he did, and one reliable source backing that up. It looks to me as though the scholarly consensus is that Jesus didn't baptize, and we should just say that, unless someone can produce a substantial and convincing quote from the Cambridge book. Don't make me buy that one, OK? Leadwind (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder in what passages (chapter and verse) three gospels agree, as here stated, that Jesus did not baptize. 193.92.202.172 (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Read the synoptics and ask yourself whether they depict Jesus baptizing anyone. They don't. But that's beside the point because you and I aren't scholars. Ask the scholars whether Jesus baptized, and they say he didn't. Except, apparently, for the folks behind the Cambridge Companion, which is why we could use a direct, extensive quote. We already had an editor mis-cite Thiessen and Merz in order to support Jesus baptizing. It's not hard to imagine that the same editor mis-cited Cambridge to support the same agenda. It's hard to blame certain folks from trying to deny that modern scholarship contradicts John, but it's WP policy to follow contemporary scholars, not scripture. Leadwind (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought. They don't depict Jesus baptizing anyone. But the editor's question was about your claim that they agree that he did not baptize. The editor didn't depict you as having drunk Coca Cola, but that doesn't justify saying that he/she says you never drank Coca Cola.

More to the point. What do you think of this opinion: "The majority of scholars now ... see in this passage (John's picture of Jesus conducting a baptism campaign) a further example of the Fourth Evangelist's preservation of a valuable tradition lost to the Synoptics"? It comes from page 68 of Baptism in the New Testament by George Raymond Beasley-Murray of 1973. Will you say that not only the majority of scholars in 2009, but absolutely all those worth their salt, disagree with what the majority thought 36 years ago? If so, I wonder what they will think after another 36 years! Soidi (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Soidi, your humorous challenge is worth a serious response. I can agree that Jesus might have baptized, and that his first biographers just left that detail out, provided you would agree with me that baptizing was as incidental to him as drinking soda is to me. But that's not what Christian apologists say, is it? They say that baptism was a vital tradition that the Lord Himself instituted and that Mark, Matthew, and Luke didn't bother to mention. As for your 36-year old citation, that's a very nice find and congratulations. It doesn't really matter what I think, however, about the likelihood that consensus scholarship has changed in 36 years. WP policy is to cite reliable sources. I have a current, university-level textbook, which is the gold standard of reliable sources. You need more than a last-generation quote from an author with no standing in the historical Jesus field. It's not fair that WP has to content itself with man's limited and changing "knowledge" when God's own Truth is staring out at people from the pages of the Bible, but that's the rules. Honestly, Soidi, if you want to contend on this point, just find a current, reliable source that backs you up. For starters, try looking up Cambridge Companion and see what they say. Leadwind (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We now have a name for the single cited scholar who (reportedly) says that Jesus baptized, Peter Tomson. Not a name I recognize, maybe not a notable source. What evidence, other than the Gospel of John, does Tomson use to determine that Jesus baptized? This sentence is vague: 'Tomson further states that the initiatory baptism of Jesus and the requirement to "repent and accept baptism" in earliest Christianity were further evidence of baptism's central place in the "good news".' Does Tomson mean the good news spread by the apostles? Or by Jesus? Big difference, and the quote doesn't say. Since Jesus wasn't big on repentance (see Sanders), maybe this reference is to the early Christians. In this same contentious section of the article, a pro-baptism editor had cited Theissen & Merz as backing baptism by Jesus even though they do just the opposite. That incident of stealthy deception has me sensitive to what else an editor might have tried to get away with here.

So the one scholar who says Jesus baptized is second-string expert in one article in a book that challenges the very project of historical Jesus. Meanwhile, a reigning expert in the field (Sanders), a university textbook (T&G), the Jesus Seminar, and a general-reader encyclopedia all say Jesus didn't baptize. I'd like to resolve this conflict by deleting the reference to Tomson, until someone can actually quote what Tomson says. Maybe we'll find out that, like the previous T&G citation, the Tomson citation is in error. That said, someone has tried hard to make the Tomson citation work, and I'm inclined to cut them some slack for their efforts. All that needs to happen then is that this material should be balanced so that due weight is put on each side, that is, more weight on the "didn't baptize" side. Leadwind (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not questioning what Leadwind has said. But his remark that this Tomson (about whom I know nothing) had the Gospel of John as evidence for his view gives me courage to ask him to please satisfy a curiosity I have long felt: what evidence do those who say Jesus did not baptize in any sense adduce for their view? I take it that they are not just saying that Jesus didn't baptize personally (John states this), but that they say his disciples didn't do any baptizing either when under his guidance. I take it also that they are not just talking about a lack of proof, but that they declare absolutely that he did not baptize in any way, even indirectly. Just a bare outline of the evidence will do, and I would be grateful for it. Lima (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Lima, it is my pleasure to answer respectful questions. In brief, the answer is that historians conclude Jesus didn't baptize because his biographers show him not baptizing. Here's the long version. Historians use the synoptics to trace Jesus' life and exclude John, except on a few points (e.g., the motives of the Jewish leaders who turned Jesus over to Pilate). The synoptics portray Jesus' ministry as lacking baptism. When there's a difference of opinion between synoptics and John, synoptics win. Now maybe in this case John is right, so let's look at the context of Jesus' baptism mission. The whole context for the mission is historically wrong. It was the temple incident, not Jesus' baptism mission, that got Jesus in the crosshairs of the High Priest. And it was John "the Baptist," not Jesus, who was known for baptizing lots of people. The trip to Jerusalem that Jesus is on when he's supposedly baptizing isn't even in the synoptics. Maybe, one might say, Jesus baptized, just not in the way that John describes it. Maybe, but does the historian have any reason to think so? The ritual of baptism is not like him. Jesus avoided rituals and displays of piety. He didn't fast like John did, he didn't abstain from wine like John did, he didn't embrace the hardships of the wilderness like John did. Crossan goes so far as to depict Jesus' ministry as a counter-response to John's mission, but then Crossan seems a little out there. Anyway, the synoptics depict Jesus as the one who won't baptize with water, but with the holy spirit and fire, and historians agree that Jesus didn't baptize, unless perhaps figuratively. John's reference is easily explained as a myth designed to depict Jesus as the founder of baptism. That's why John isn't even called "the Baptist," and Jesus himself isn't baptized (in John). Leadwind (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Again, I have no intention of retouching the article on this matter. However, I will say that the evidence adduced is extremely flimsy. To build an argument on the absence of the word "Baptist" in the fourth Gospel in relation to John is worse than ridiculous, when that Gospel repeatedly speaks of John as one who engaged in baptizing (five times in 1:25-33, again more than once in the context where it says Jesus was baptizing by proxy, and again in 10:40). And how does it depict Jesus as the founder of baptism when it indicates that Jesus' baptizing was understood as rivalry with John's baptizing? "His biographers - I presume that by that you mean the three Synoptics - show him not baptizing": you mean surely that "they do not show him baptizing", which is a very different thing. And even some who consider the Fourth Gospel of lesser historical value than the other three view the account in John 3:22-26 of Jesus' disciples' baptizing as possibly historical. I quote from Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, by Dwight Moody Smith, R. Alan Culpepper, C. Clifton Black (Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), p. 28: "There are items only in John that are like to be historical and ought to be given due weight. Jesus' first disciples may once have been followers of the Baptist (cf. John 1:35-42). There is no a priori reason to reject the report of Jesus and his disciples' conducting a ministry of baptism for a time (3:22-26). That Jesus regularly visited Jerusalem, rather than merely at the time of his death, is often accepted as more realistic for a pious, first-century Jewish male (and is hinted at in the other Gospels as well: Mark 11:2; Luke 13:34; 22:8-13, 53)." And from Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall (InterVarsity Press, 1992), p. 375: "Simply because information is found only in John is no reason to discard it as of no historical value ... Scholars consider it probable, for example, that Jesus' ministry lasted two to three years (as John implies), that he was in and out of Jerusalem (as the other Gospels hint - e.g., Luke 13:34), that some of his disciples were first disciples of John the Baptist (1:35-37), and that Jesus and his disciples conducted a ministry of baptism." And these are not the only works that could be cited. As I said, I do not intend to alter what you have put in the text of the article. But I wonder if you yourself might wish to alter it, in view of the extreme weakness of the evidence on which the writers of uncertain number to whom you refer base their claim that Jesus certainly did not baptize even by proxy. It is difficult to see exactly how many writers actually do make that claim. At least one of the citations proposed in the article is of a writer who does not mention the question at all ("E. P. Sanders omits"). Some other editors have asked for page numbers to be added to the citations given for the claim, and no attempt has been made to give the page numbers, which makes verification doubtful. Even your beloved Jesus Seminar is presented as only saying that there is no evidence that Jesus' disciples did baptize, which is not the same as declaring that they did not baptize. Lima (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lima, three points: First, I'm in no position to change the text about Jesus not baptizing even if I were to be convinced personally that he did (or might have). WP is about what RSs say, not about what you and I agree is reasonable. Second, you only addressed half the evidence I presented. Third, your sources are weak, coming from Christian presses and saying only that baptism by Jesus is thought to be probable (the evangelical source) or not to dismissed out of hand (the more academic press). Now as for the gospel of John, it's true that historians accept some details as historical, but only those that square with the account in the synoptics or that are historically plausible in their own right. John's account of Jesus leading a massive baptism mission in Judea doesn't square with the synoptics and doesn't match anything else we know about Jesus from other sources. Perhaps you could make your case better if we turned the tables and you took the opportunity to explain what evidence historians might have that would lead them to believe Jesus baptized. Leadwind (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I know, which may not be much, this is what I can say. I am aware of the quote from the Bible that Jesus did not baptize. I am also aware that several scholars have indicated that had one letter been lost in transcription somewhere down the line, that quote might have originally read "Jesus baptized no one but the disciples", which would seemingly indicate that he did baptize them. Many scholars also point out the incident of the man in the white sheet at Gethsemane as being a possible baptism by Jesus. Then, of course, there is the fact that Jesus rather dramatically was himself baptized, and the seemingly accurate fact that baptism became a required ritual shortly after Jesus' death. As it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that a man who was himself baptized, and whose followers seemingly all baptized, did no baptisms himself, I think, even without a "smoking gun", there is enough evidence from to hold open the probability that he did perform some sort of ritual action which could be called a baptism. Anyway, just a few ideas. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that Wiki ld be very prudent in taking a stand about scholar's guesses. And for example the Jesus Seminar's understanding are simply guesses, not historical facts. IMHO Wiki shall list by first the facts, i.e. what the Gospel says, and only later list scholar hypothesis, listing both who support that Jesus (or his disciples) baptized and who object. A ntv (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Two points. The idea that Jesus baptized I think dates back to before the Jesus Seminar started. Two, I have read several sources which provide reasonable questions regarding whether the gospels were written as and/or should be taken as historically accurate. This includes respected scholars who so far as I can tell had nothing to do with the Jesus Seminar, some of whom came well before the Jesus Seminar. Given the comparatively low opinion many historians have for the gospels, I think it is stretching things quite a bit to call their accounts "facts". John Carter (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, but Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a review paper. The reader is by first interested to find out what the Gospels says, and then, perhaps, what the scholars (usually one against the other) say. A ntv (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

John Carter, you have a cogent argument that Jesus might have baptized. I admit he might have. You haven't explained why the synoptic gospels would omit Jesus baptizing or say that he baptized with the holy spirit and not water. Of course, what we editors can agree on is beside the point. It's our humble duty to stick to the RSs. Maybe you can find a good RS that says Jesus probably baptized. Leadwind (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ntv, the first thing the reader should get is the standard scholarly viewpoint, such as from a university-level textbook. That's what they get on every other article: current scholarly opinion. There's a section for what the gospels say, but that's about what the gospels say, not about what happened historically. Leadwind (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Lima altered the text I added for "balance," so I edited it again. The scholars who say Jesus didn't baptize are prominent (Sanders, Funk & JS, Thiessen & Merz). These guys outrank anyone the other side has put forth. The sources that Lima recently provided and that I added are specifically Christian sources, and I think it's fair that the Christian viewpoint be included here, labeled as such. The WJK source doesn't say that Jesus' baptism mission is likely to be historical the way it does say that for Jesus visiting Jerusalem multiple times and for John the Baptist's followers joining the Jesus movement. It merely states that the baptism mission ought not be dismissed a priori ("out of hand" for the nontechnical). Leadwind (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Specifying the religious convictions of only some of the writers, editorially suggesting unreliability, seems weasel-like to me. Would it help to specify the religious convictions of the other writers too?

In my reading, what you call the WJK source gives Jesus' ministry of baptizing as one of its three examples of "items only in John that are likely to be historical and ought to be given due weight" Or did that source, after all, fail to give any examples? Lima (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If there's a scholar published on a Muslim press or on an atheist press, then, yes, label those sources as Muslim or atheist. Intervarsity and WJK are Christian sources.

Suggestion: we're getting a lot of scholars named in the baptism section, which is great. But it's getting a little crowded. How about we eliminate all the scholars too lowly to warrant WP pages. We can apply this criterion equally to both sides of the debate. We have lots of good material from people and groups that do warrant pages. Let's trim this section a little by sticking to the major players. Leadwind (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Who? Lima (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Since we have plenty of prominent scholars weighing in on baptisms by Jesus, let's stick to the major players in the field. We already have Theissen & Merz's university-level textbook, Sanders' historical account, plus Crossan and the rest of the Jesus Seminar. Those are major scholars in the field. Let's add Vermes and Brown. Then once we have these heavy hitters accounted for, the second-string scholars will be superfluous. Leadwind (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It would indeed be superfluous to mention less prominent scholars who say the same thing as your preferred ones. But refusing to include academics who point out the weaknesses of the view here attributed to your preferred scholars would certainly not correspond to Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

You have really given only two sources for the opinion that there was never a period when Jesus and his disciples carried out a ministry of baptizing. If Sanders does not mention that preliminary ministry, it does not follow that he denies its existence. And when you say that some see historical difficulties in the passage, difficulties that others do not see (leaving the city of Jerusalem for the Judean countryside is not really a difficulty), you are only saying that they hold there is no evidence for it, not saying that they deny that it took place. So it would be helpful if you would quote from those two sources, Theissen & Merz and ODWR, that you say do deny it. Then we can see clearly whether they really do deny an early ministry of baptizing and are not merely referring to the main ministry of Jesus, beginning in Galilee. Everybody agrees that baptizing was not part of that ministry. Lima (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

ODWR, T&M, and Jesus Seminar are three sources. The "historical problems" are more than the "countryside" quote. Sanders omits Jesus' alleged baptism ministry. Name one prominent scholar that says historical Jesus ever baptized. You refer to these sources as the ones I prefer, but they're the ones WP prefers: a university level textbook plus other works by prominent scholars in the field. Leadwind (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's Morton Smith, whom I acknowledge is a more than somewhat controversial figure, who is mentioned in #Baptism by Jesus below. He doesn't specifically state that Jesus baptized, that I saw anyway, but he very definitely indicates that he thinks Jesus probably did. John Carter (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Morton Smith? Is that really the most prominent scholar who says Jesus probably baptized? If so, that says something right there. Leadwind (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Didache and immersion

Leadwind, the Didache is a lot more specific than you claim, which is precisely the point made by the sources I quoted. The fact is that the Didache differentiates between BAPTIZW (which is identified as normative praxis), and EKCHEW, from CHEW, (which is identified as praxis in extremis). It differentiates between that which is called BAPTIZW and the act of pouring (which it identifies with CHEW). In the Didache, BAPTIZW is immersion, not pouring:

• Metzger, Marcel (1997). "The Order of Baptism in the Didache". History of the Liturgy: The Major Stages. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. pp. 25–26. ISBN 0-8146-2433-2. "The Didache recognizes the superior value of running water for the baptismal immersion but does not impose it as a necessary condition… The regulations of the Didache also forsee the case in which immersion is impossible for lack of water and prescribe baptism by pouring water three times on the candidate's head."
• Lacoste, Jean-Yves (2005). Encyclopedia of Christian Theology: G–O. Milton Park: Routledge. p. 1607. ISBN 0-5795-8250-8. "According to the Didache (1st century), baptism should be done by a triple immersion in running water."
• Meeks, Wayne A. (2006). "Baptism: ritual of initiation". in Margaret Mary Mitchell and Frances Margaret Young. The Cambridge History of Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 160-161. ISBN 0-521-81239-9. "The Didache, representing practice perhaps as early as the beginning of the second century, probably in Syria, also assumes immersion to be normal, but it allows that if sufficient water for immersion is not at hand, water may be poured three times over the head (7:3)."
• Dau, W. H. T. (1995). "Baptism". in Geoffrey W. Bromiley. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: A–D. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. pp. 410–426. ISBN 0-8028-3781-6. http://books.google.com/books?id=BW_1mt4oebQC&pg=PA410. "This seems to say that to baptize by immersion was the practice recommended for general use, but that the mode of affusion was also valid and enjoined on occasions."
• Ibid, page 416, 'There is thus no doubt that early in the 2nd cent. some Christians felt baptism was so important that, when the real baptism (immersion) could not be performed because of lack of water, pouring might be used in its place.', 'It is to be noted that for pouring another word (ekcheo) is used, clearly showing that baptizo does not mean "pour."'

When speaking of affusion, or pouring, the Didache does not say 'and if you have no water, then baptize three times on the head'. It uses a completely different Greek word. It uses CHEW, the ordinary Greek word for 'pour'. The word BAPTIZW is here placed in contrast to the word for 'pour' indicating that for the Didache BAPTIZW was not pouring, and the permission of affusion only in the absence of sufficient water reinforces the fact that immersion was the normative understanding of BAPTIZW in this ritual context. That is precisely what is stated in the four sources I quoted. All of them identify the BAPTIZW of the Didache as immersion, not affusion (from which it is differentiated in the Didache itself). --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Didache treats the method by pouring as a form of baptism (βάπτισμα) and as included in the meaning of the verb "baptize" (βαπτίζω), since it treats this method as falling within its instruction concerning "baptism" (the noun) and on how to "baptize" (the verb), which begins: Περὶ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, οὕτως βαπτίσατε (Regarding baptism, baptize as follows). Does anyone translate this opening phrase as "Regarding immersion, immerse as follows"? I don't think so.

Of course, when speaking of water you can stand in, one tends to translate the verb βαπτίζω as "immerse" (which isn't the same as "submerge"). I might well do so myself, but I would not thereby mean that "immerse" is the only meaning of the verb βαπτίζω. I suppose everyone uses "baptize" to translate βαπτίζω in the opening phrase.

Leadwind, I feel sure, would not consider the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia authoritative, including its latest reprints, in spite of the high praise given to it in the Wikipedia stub on this 1915 work. For instance, it says that the Gospel of John (not just the Synoptics) has an account of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist (pp. 411 and 412). For my part, I will only say that Taiwan boi's last quotation, "when the real baptism (immersion) could not be performed because of lack of water, pouring might be used in its place. ... It is to be noted that for pouring another word (ekchéō) is used, clearly showing that baptízō does not mean 'pour'", is expressly given in the book as a "Baptist View", not as an objective statement of the facts. This is obvious even in the slanted language used ("real baptism (immersion)" and "baptízō does not mean 'pour'" - of course it doesn't mean "pour", just as "feline" doesn't mean "lion"; but in the Didache βαπτίζω includes pouring, as "feline" includes "lion".

The other sources merely use "immerse" (again, not "submerge") when speaking of water you can stand in, as I might well do myself, though in this context I probably should not.

My Talk-page comments show that, if someone wants to put the contrary view in Wikipedia, he should be aware that his interpretation of the sources given here is not the only possible one, and so, if he bases his edit on these sources alone, he is merely inserting his own POV.

If we quote the Didache, it would be more accurate to use the same English word throughout to translate the same word βαπτίζω, which in the opening phrase will certainly be translated as "baptize". So I would suggest for the text: "It indicates a preference for baptizing in "living" (i.e. running) water or, if that is unavailable, in still water, preferably at its natural temperature, but considers that, if there is not enough water for that, it is enough to pour water on the head." Running water includes not only a river or stream, but also water channelled in some way from a spring, as by aqueduct or pipe; and, in spite of what the present text says, the Didache mentioned temperature with regard to still water, not running water. Lima (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the text in the article is not quoting the Didache, it's commenting on the Didache. Your claim 'is expressly given in the book as a Baptist View, not as an objective statement of the facts', is wrong. The text says 'The very exception filed proves the Baptist contention concerning baptizo'. Not only that, but even if it were a Baptist view it is clearly not exclusively a Baptist view, since three independent reliable sources identify the same distinction. Likewise, your objection to the reliability of the ISBE is irrelevant in this case given that three independent reliable sources say the same thing on this very point.

You ask 'Does anyone translate this opening phrase as "Regarding immersion, immerse as follows"? I don't think so'. Ironically, yes. As for your analogy of 'feline' and 'lion', I have not found any lexicon yet which identifies EKCHEW as a subset of BAPTIZW as 'lion' is a subset of 'feline'. Have you?

It's not difficult to find even more [[WP:RS|reliable sources] which say the same:

• 'The immersion in water at the hands of a recognized mentor had the effect of permanently and irreversibly transforming the identity of the one being baptized.' (Aaron Milavec, 'The Didache', 2003)
• 'Alon identified a series of early halakhot in the text of the Didache, ranging from the areas of abortion and infanticide, magic, and slavery in the Jewish "Two Ways" part, to prayer, fasting, immersion or baptism, and priestly offerings in the "Christian" part. (Hubertus Waltherus, Maria van de Sandt, 'Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-christian Milieu?', 2005)
• 'More likely, Niederwimmer, Die Didache, 163 supposes that the graded qualification of immersion water was adopted wholesale from Jewish tradition' (Ibid)
• 'The argument of the section is clear: while adhering strictly to the preference for flowing water and baptism by immersion, necessary concessions are made to local circumstances.' (Jonathan Draper, 'The Didache in Modern Research', 1996)
• 'The baptismal ceremony follows the Syriac custom of annointing before the immersion with the Trinitarian formula (16).' (Everett Ferguson, Michael P. McHugh, Frederick W. Norris, 'Encyclopedia of Early Christianity', 1999)
• 'Baptism in the Didache was to be in "living," that is, in running water. This suggests that baptism at this time was normally by immersion.' (Laurie Guy, Laurie Guy, PhD, 'Introducing Early Christianity', 2004)
• 'Eastern tradition strongly defended the practice of threefold immersion under the waters, but Latin practice increasingly came to use a sprinkling of water on the head (also mentioned in Didache 7 if there was not sufficient water for immersion.)' (John Anthony McGuckin, 'The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology', 2004)

You have simply ignored the fact that four reliable sources say that the BAPTIZW of the Didache is immersion, not affusion. That's the issue here. Since you are not a reliable source, I see no reason to accept your view over the four reliable sources I provided. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Lima, are we agreeing with each other? The word "immerse" has the more general sense of "soak." Lots of times you "soak" things by dipping or submerging them (Easter eggs in dye), but I can also "soak" you by dumping water over your head. (The translation "soak" is OR, but I think it's right.) Let's avoid using the term "immerse," as it can be misunderstood to mean "put under water." On the other hand, if the experts conclude that the Didache means candidates were submerged, that's an important fact worth citing. Leadwind (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the experts do not conclude that the Didache means candidates were submerged. Even the sources that Taiwan boi selected, the word chosen is "immerse". The important thing is that those who have translated chapter 7 of the Didache in its entirety into English have used exactly the same word, "baptize", to translate βαπτίζω throughout the chapter, not only at the beginning of the chapter, but alsowhere, for instance, it speaks of baptizing in running water. See the translations by Charles H. Hoole, Richardson, Iwan Lewis, Lightfoot, modernized Lightfoot, Roberts-Donaldson, Sauder. But I think we should let Taiwan boi have a further say before we change anything. Lima (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the important thing is that those reliable sources commenting on baptismal practice in the Didache agree that baptism was by immersion, with pouring an alternative available only in extremis. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

We all agree that early Christians practiced baptism by "immersion" (that is, baptism by baptism) rather than by affusion. By "immersion," they meant standing in a river and having someone pour water over the head. Tb, please find us a citation that indicates what "immersion" meant. If you find a good reference that says "immersion meant submersion," you're onto something. Leadwind (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're asking me to do that. Have a look at these references and you tell me if they're using 'immersion' to mean 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head'. In this reference the author says that Baptists have been the strongest advocates of immersion. Is he saying that the Baptists have been the strongest advocates of 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head'?

• 'Although the Eastern Orthodox Church immerses babies, the Baptist tradition has been the strongest advocate of immersion.' (Stanley J. Grenz, 'Theology for the Community of God', 1994)

The same author notes that nonimmersionists argue that 'water was poured on the head of the baptismal candidate standing in a river or body of water', indicating that the author understands this act to be a nonimmersion:

• 'Nonimmersionists do not deem this exegetical evidence conclusive. They point out that baptizo is broader than its literal meaning, for it is used occasionally in a figurative sense (Mark 7:4; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 11:38; 1 Cor. 10:2). Further, although the descriptions of New Testament baptisms indicate that baptism occurred with both the officiator and the candidate standing in water, they do not state specifically what happened in the act. In fact, critics argue, early Christian art may indicate that water was poured on the head of the baptismal candidate standing in a river or body of water.' (Stanley J. Grenz, 'Theology for the Community of God', 1994)

The same author identifies the word 'immerse' as synonymous with 'to dip':

• 'It has frequently been argued that the word baptizein invariably means "to dip or "immerse," and that therefore Christian baptism must have been performed originally by immersion only, and that the other two forms, affusion and aspersion, are invalid - that there can be no real baptism unless the method of immersion be used.' (Stanley J. Grenz, 'Theology for the Community of God', 1994)

The same author specifically distinguishes immersion not only from affusion, but from 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head'. The author actually defines affusion as 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head':

• 'It is a somewhat curious fact that if the evidence of the written texts, whether ancient canons or writings of the early fathers, be studied by themselves, the natural conclusion would seem to be that immersion was the almost universal form of administering the rite; but if the witness of the earliest pictorial representations be collected, then we must infer that affusion was the usual method, and that immersion was exceptional; for the pictorial representations, almost without exception , display baptism performed by affusion, i.e., the recipient is seen standing in water while the minister pours water on the head.' (Stanley J. Grenz, 'Theology for the Community of God', 1994)

This author identifies immersion as 'going underwater':

• 'The best parallel we have for the baptism of John may be the immersion of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip, which was clearly not a case of pouring but of going underwater in a natural flow or reservoir encountered by the travelers on the road between Jerusalem and Gaza.' (Joan E. Taylor, 'The Immerser', 1997)

This author (speaking of Jewish rituals), does the same:

• 'Presumably D5 and D6 apply to men and women alike; after completing the immersion (D5) - that is, after submerging totally in the water and emerging - the convert, whether male or female, is deemed to be like an Israelite in all respects (D6).' (Shaye J. D. Cohen, 'The Beginnings of Jewishness', 2001)

This author does the same:

• 'The baptism of John did have certain similarities to the ritual washings at Qumran: both invovled withdrawal to the desert to await the lord; both were linked to an ascetic lifestyle; both included total immersion in water; and both had an eschatological context.' (Maxwell E. Johnson, 'Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation', 1995)

And again:

• 'This ritual is the ultimate source of the form of John's ritual which apparently involved total immersion in water.'(Maxwell E. Johnson, 'Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation', 1995)

Another author also distinguishes immersion from the traditional image of John the Baptist pouring water over Jesus' head:

• 'The fact that he chose a permanent and deep river suggsets that more than a token quantity of water was needed, and both the preposition "in" (the Jordan) and the basic meaning of the verb "baptize" probably indicate immersion. In v. 16 Matthew will speak of Jesus "coming up out of the water." The traditional depiction in Christian art of John the Baptist pouring water over Jesus' head may therefore be based on later Christian practice.' (R. T. France, 'The Gospel of Matthew', 2007)

The same author makes it clear he is using the term 'immersion' as a reference to dipping, plunging, burying, not to 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head':

• 'BDAG translates baptizw as "plunge, dip, wash" as well as "baptize"; they mention non-Christian usage outside a ritual context as "to put or go under water in a variety of senses." The symbolism of death, burial, and resurrection found in later Christian baptism (Rom 6:3-4) also suggests immersion. See further R.L. Webb. John, 179-180. J.E. Taylor, John, 49-58, also argues for immersion (probably self-immersion) and translates Job's title as "John the Immerser."'

Again, same author (different work):

• 'This indicates that the metaphor is perhaps less surprising than we might first think, but none of these "liquid" references to the Spirit easily allows the idea of dipping or immersion.' (R. T. France, 'The Gospel of Mark', 2002)

Another author:

• 'Nevertheless, iti s abundantly clear that while the meal and table companionship after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension did remain distinguishing characteristics of the Christian community (cf. Acts 2:42), a community that came even to place the banquet table at the architectural center of its assembly places, rites called either baptisma (baptism, immersion, or dipping) or loutron (bath or washing) came almost immediately to serve as the means of initiation into this community.' (Maxwell E. Johnson, 'The Rites of Christian Initiation', 2007)

Even this author, hostile against submersion, uses 'immersion' to refer to submersion, not to 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head':

• 'In some cases, the width is also insufficient for the immersion of any but small children, despite the presence of large numbers of adult candidates in this early period.' (Ralph E. Bass, Jr., Ralph E Bass, 'What about Baptism', 1999)
• 'The baptismal fonts still found among the ruins of the msot ancient Greek churches in Palestine, as at Tekoa and Gophna, and going back apparently to the very early times, are not large enough to admit of the baptism of adult persons by immersion, and were obviously never intended for that use.' (Ralph E. Bass, Jr., Ralph E Bass, 'What about Baptism', 1999)
• 'As can be seen from the Old Syriac Version of the New Testament, from the Didache, from the early baptismal fonts, and from the Catacombs, baptisms in the very early church, were done by pouring or sprinkling, not by immersion.' (Ralph E. Bass, Jr., Ralph E Bass, 'What about Baptism', 1999)

Yet another author identifying 'immersed in' as 'dipped in', not as 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head':

• 'There is a sense in v. 27 that in being dipped in (immersed in) the anointed, one envelops/dyes/covers oneself with the anointed.' (David W. Odell-Scott, 'Paul's Critique of Theocracy', 2003)

And yet another:

• 'Basil of Caesarea took the sign of Jonah a step further and interpreted Jonah's three days in the belly of the monster as a figure of the triple immersion in baptism. Since Christian baptism is itself a symbol of Jesus' passion, death, and resurrection, the baptismal connection would be logical even without the added detail of the water - water into which Jonah is tossed and the initiate is immersed. Jonah's nudity thus symbolizes the nudity of the candiates for baptism as they are dipped and "reborn" from the wombike waters of the baptismal font.' (Robin Margaret Jensen, 'Understanding Early Christian Art', 2000)

I just don't find this curious definition of 'immersion' ('standing in water while someone pours water on your head'), used in the reliable sources. I don't even find it mentioned in the standard dictionary definitions of the English word.

Regardless of this, I see no reason to retain the ambiguous word 'baptize' in the article, when the reliable quoted all specify 'immerse'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting quotes. I'm tired of editors who try to prove their points by rhetoric. Clearly there's a difference of opinion on whether immersion means submersion. In fact, one of your own quotes says, "As can be seen from the Old Syriac Version of the New Testament, from the Didache, from the early baptismal fonts, and from the Catacombs, baptisms in the very early church, were done by pouring or sprinkling, not by immersion.'" Clearly, the author is using immersion to mean submersion, and the Didache doesn't call for it. As for your theological sources, it's all well and good for theologians to hold that baptism was by submersion, or that Mary was immaculately conceived, or that Jesus made Peter the first pope, or all sorts of things that historians don't agree with, but for this part of the article we need the historical angle, not one of many theological ones. The meaning of an English word, by the way, is irrelevant since it's a Greek word we're talking about, and its meaning is broader than "immerse." You would like the article to specify "immerse," but that word is not specific, as some people take it to mean submerge and others to pour water over the head while standing in water. Finally, on a personal note, I once believed that the Baptists had it right with total immersion, but once I looked into it carefully, I concluded I'd been wrong, and that immersion is as pictured in early Christian art: standing in water with more water poured over the head. Leadwind (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Grenz was a Baptist. Put his theological conclusions about baptism under the Baptist section. Leadwind (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of issues here:

• The purpose of the list of quotes I provided was to demonstrate that the word 'immerse' in this context is normatively used to refer to submersion, and not to 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head'. That is what you asked for. Every single source I quoted said that, and I provided nine sources from a very broad cross section of works. There was no difference of opinion between any of them on this point.
• The purpose of the list of quotes I provided was not to demonstrate that baptism in the Didache was submersion. It was to demonstrate that the word 'immerse' in this context is normatively used in the relevant literature to refer to submersion, and not to 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head'.
• This being the case, it is in fact the English word which is in dispute in this part of the discussion, not the Greek word. Your claim was that the English word 'immerse' in this context is normatively used in the relevant English literature to refer to 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head'. I contested this, and you asked me to find sources which used the English word 'immersion' to mean 'submersion'. I provided them. If you really think the issue is about the Greek word, then please explain why and provide all the evidence you can that BAPTIZW means 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head'. That the Greek word has a meaning broader than 'immerse' is not in dispute. But you need to provide evidence that it actually included 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head' within its semantic domain.
• For this reason, it does not matter whether the sources I provided were theological or not (and you know they weren't all theological, and you know they weren't all Baptist, so neither of those points is relevant).
• The source I provided which you quote helpfully uses the term 'immersion' to mean 'submersion', as you note. Thank you. That was the whole point of quoting it. To say 'the Didache doesn't call for it is another subject entirely. It's also begging the question and ignoring the reliable sources I provided which state very clearly that the baptism of the Didache was immersion, and that immersion meant submersion.
• I want the article to specific that baptism in the Didache was immersion for the simple reason that this is exactly what the relevant scholarly sources actually say. To date you have given me no explanation as to why you refuse to recognize them.

Your acknowledgment that you once held the Baptist view and now believe you were wrong was very useful, thanks. It certainly places your opposition to this point (and to the relevant scholarly literature), in a useful context. I'll try this one more time, and then I'll simply take the issue to RfC or something a little more authoritative, where there's a broader spectrum of editor. All I see here is a steadfast opposition to a wealth of reliable sources (I have now located and painstakingly typed out details from well over a dozen), without any arguments of substance being put forward, still less any reliable sources. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Taiwan, you have shown that "immersion" can sometimes mean "submersion". You have not shown that "immersion" always means "submersion". As Leadwind says, the Didache was not written in English, but in Greek. It used the word "βαπτίζω". That word does not necessarily mean "submerge". One doesn't submerge a cup entirely in a bowl when drawing wine by dipping a cup in it: you still hold it by the handle or rim instead. The New Testament, written in the same time period as the Didache has two passages in which "βαπτίζω" clearly did not mean total submersion. It is enough to indicate in the article that some writers interpret βαπτἰζω" in verse 2, though perhaps not in verse 1, as meaning "submerge". Lima (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I see now you have not in fact been reading what I have been writing. I have never claimed that BAPTIZW always means 'submersion'. That has never been my argument. I have shown that contrary to the claim here that the English word 'immersion' really means 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head', that the word 'immersion' is used in standard reliable sources to mean 'submersion'. I have also shown that standard reliable sources understand the BAPTIZW of the Didache to be specifically an immersion, not vaguely 'a baptism'. You are tilting at windmills, and you are still ignoring all the reliable sources I provided. If you are still intent on ignoring the reliable sources I have posted, and you are still intent on not reading what I write, then I'll simply take this to RfC. --Taiwan boi (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Let us leave aside the question whether the English word "immersion" means standing in water while someone pours water on your head: the article doesn't say that this is the meaning of the English word "immersion", and so it serves no purpose to discuss it. Some of the writers you quote understand "immersion" to mean submersion but speak of early-Christian baptism as being done by pouring water on people standing in fonts too shallow for submerging them. So that may have been what the Didache too had in mind. Isn't it enough to say that some people think that in the Didache βαπτίζω means submerge, and others do not? You agree, I think, that the word "immersion" is ambiguous: but for many people it does suggest submersion rather than partial immersion. I think we should avoid possibly misleading words. So why not use the neutral word "baptize"? Those who interpret that word as meaning submersion may do so; those who interpret the word as meaning something less may do so; the word "baptize" does not suggest one interpretation rather than the other, while "immerse" does. Lima (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

We can't leave aside the question of whether the English word 'immersion' means standing in water while someone pours water on your head, for two reasons. One is that it is in fact in the article ('Immersion is a method of baptism employed at least from the second century, whereby part of the candidate's body was submerged in the baptismal water which was poured over the remainder'). Another is the fact that Leadwind has appealed directly to this claim. To date neither of you have provided evidence to justify this claim.

You say 'Some of the writers you quote understand "immersion" to mean submersion but speak of early-Christian baptism as being done by pouring water on people standing in fonts too shallow for submerging them'. Actually all of the authors I quoted understand 'immersion' to mean 'submersion'. All nine of them. Only one of them speaks of early Christian baptism as being done by pouring water on people standing in fonts too shallow for submerging them, and that is a theological work arguing specifically from the non-immersionist perspective. In any case, that isn't relevant, because we are discussing not 'early Christian baptism' but specifically the baptism of the Didache. The reliable sources I provided all say that the baptism of the Didache was an immersion. You have given no good reason to ignore these reliable sources.

No it isn't enough to say that some people think that in the Didache βαπτίζω means submerge, and others do not. What matters is what the reliable sources say. This is a simple matter of Wikipedia policy. If you have any reliable sources that say that in the Didache βαπτίζω does not mean immerse or submerge, then we can list them as well. But if you actually had any I'm sure you would have quoted them by now.

No I do not agree that the word 'immersion' is ambiguous. I have said the exact opposite. I have said that the English word 'immersion' is definitely understood to mean 'submersion', and that this is found not only in a wide range of sources (I quoted nine), but also in standard English dictionaries. I have said that the word baptize is ambiguous, and that in this case it should be replaced with the word which reliable sources say it actually means in this place. I provided four reliable sources which say it means 'immersion' in this place. You have given no reason to ignore those sources. Why not use the neutral word 'baptize'? Because reliable sources agree on the specific meaning. It is simply a suppression of evidence to ignore this. It's like the Wikipedia article on the sky saying that the sky is normatively 'colourful' when a host of reliable sources actually say that the sky normatively appears blue, and justifying it on the grounds that some people disagree that the sky normatively appears blue so we should use the ambiguous term 'colourful'. The fact is that you are ignoring the evidence of reliable sources. You want the word to be ambiguous, when reliable sources say it isn't.

You have now made it clear that the whole reason why you object to this edit is that you do not wish people to come away with the idea that the baptism of the Didache was an immersion. That's very clear. It means your opposition to the reliable sources is based on what you want people to think. That is a breach of Wikipedia policy. That's POV. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Tb, so now the conversation is merely about semantics? Your point is merely that immersion is sometimes used to mean submersion? We all know that. Theologians of particular denominations say that all the time. Our source, the ODCC, agrees with you: the term is sometimes used to mean submersion. Then it disagrees with you, but strictly speaking should be differentiated from it. I worked fast, so let me know if I missed something.

So I reworked the paragraph. There's no need to cite the whole text or make a big deal of it. Everyone knows that the Didache says "Baptize/immerse in living water, and if you can't do living water, etc..." That's what all the quoted scholars agree on. Some of them say that the "immerse" in Didache is literal. Non-Baptist scholars generally agree that "immerse" in this context doesn't mean submerge. One citation is left, and probably only because there's no quote. According to a previous editor, this citation says to take immerse literally in the this context. I doubt it, but I have to leave it as a point of order. Tb, maybe I've missed it in all this thread, but do you have a non-Baptist source that says "Didache proves submersion"?

Furthermore, RfC? Please don't drag more people into this just yet. You're at the point of winning. Just produce your citation that Didache demonstrates submersion and I'm on your side. Then again, if you want to go the RfC route, it would probably be instructive. Leadwind (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing yourself again. My point is not that 'immersion is sometimes used to mean submersion'. On the contrary, I have argued that the English word 'immersion' is definitely understood to mean 'submersion', and that this is found not only in a wide range of sources (I quoted nine), but also in standard English dictionaries. Lima has acknowledged that when people read 'immersion' they think of 'submersion', not 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head'. I have said that the word baptize is ambiguous, and that in this case it should be replaced with the word which reliable sources say it actually means in this place. I provided four reliable sources which say it means 'immersion' in this place. You have given no reason to ignore those sources.

I would really like to see the full quote from the ODCC. It is curious that no page number is given. I have searched for this quote online, and I have never seen it quoted in full. The book is not available to be read on Googlebooks, so I have been unable to confirm what this quote says. Regardless, I have listed well over a dozen reliable sources which understand immersion to mean submersion, and which differentiate between immersion and 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head, for two reasons', which is specifically classified as not immersion. So even if the ODCC is being correctly represented here, it is clearly an outlier.

You claim 'Non-Baptist scholars generally agree that "immerse" in this context doesn't mean submerge'. Really? Which scholars? List them please, complete with quotes. I've provided almost a dozen non-Baptist scholars who understand the BAPTIZW of the Didache to refer specifically to immersion, by which they mean submersion. You now tell me that you have deleted almost all of the reliable source quotes which said that the BAPTIZW of the Didache was an immersion. Why did you do this?

You ask if I have a non-Baptist source that says that the Didache proves submersion. If by that you mean a non-Baptist source which identifies the BAPTIZW of the Didache as an immersion, I've already listed a dozen of them. If by that you mean a non-Baptist source which identifies the BAPTIZW of the Didache as a submersion, I've already provided at least half a dozen. But of course, even this isn't the issue. The issue is that you don't even want to include reliable sources which say that the BAPTIZW of the Didache was an immersion. Why?

This has nothing to do with 'winning'. It's about following standard Wikipedia policy. It is looking more and more like RfC is the way to go since neither of you are reading my posts, neither of you are reading the reliable sources I have quoted, neither of you are providing any reliable sources of your own, and you both have an unspecified objection to this article including any information from reliable sources which identifies the BAPTIZW of the Didache as an immersion, still less a submersion. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan, "immerse" can mean "submerge", but does not have to mean that. An immersion can also be partial, and so not a submersion. You have no grounds for claiming that all those who used "immerge" to translate βαπτίζω in the Didache thereby meant complete immersion. "Some form of baptism by total or partial immersion was likely the usual mode during the New Testament period. This is further indicated by the fact that baptism in 'running Water' is prescribed in the Didache as the normal procedure" (The One Baptism and the Many Baptisms by Ralph G. Wilburn). See also what is said about partial immersion by, for instance, Philip Schaff. Lima (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)\

Again you're being vague. What do you mean 'immerse' can mean 'submerge' but doesn't have to mean that? Are you talking about the English word 'immerse'? In that case, let's have a look at dictionary definitions of the English word.

You claim 'You have no grounds for claiming that all those who used "immerge" to translate βαπτίζω in the Didache thereby meant complete immersion'. I didn't use the word 'immerge', and I didn't make that claim. I said that all of the sources I had listed understood 'immerse' to mean 'submerge'. That's exactly what I was asked to provide, and I provided it. Here it is again. Have a look at these references and you tell me if they're using 'immersion' to mean 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head'. In this reference the author says that Baptists have been the strongest advocates of immersion. Is he saying that the Baptists have been the strongest advocates of 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head'?

• 'Although the Eastern Orthodox Church immerses babies, the Baptist tradition has been the strongest advocate of immersion.' (Stanley J. Grenz, 'Theology for the Community of God', 1994)

The same author notes that nonimmersionists argue that 'water was poured on the head of the baptismal candidate standing in a river or body of water', indicating that the author understands this act to be a nonimmersion:

• 'Nonimmersionists do not deem this exegetical evidence conclusive. They point out that baptizo is broader than its literal meaning, for it is used occasionally in a figurative sense (Mark 7:4; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 11:38; 1 Cor. 10:2). Further, although the descriptions of New Testament baptisms indicate that baptism occurred with both the officiator and the candidate standing in water, they do not state specifically what happened in the act. In fact, critics argue, early Christian art may indicate that water was poured on the head of the baptismal candidate standing in a river or body of water.' (Stanley J. Grenz, 'Theology for the Community of God', 1994)

The same author identifies the word 'immerse' as synonymous with 'to dip':

• 'It has frequently been argued that the word baptizein invariably means "to dip or "immerse," and that therefore Christian baptism must have been performed originally by immersion only, and that the other two forms, affusion and aspersion, are invalid - that there can be no real baptism unless the method of immersion be used.' (Stanley J. Grenz, 'Theology for the Community of God', 1994)

The same author specifically distinguishes immersion not only from affusion, but from 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head'. The author actually defines affusion as 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head':

• 'It is a somewhat curious fact that if the evidence of the written texts, whether ancient canons or writings of the early fathers, be studied by themselves, the natural conclusion would seem to be that immersion was the almost universal form of administering the rite; but if the witness of the earliest pictorial representations be collected, then we must infer that affusion was the usual method, and that immersion was exceptional; for the pictorial representations, almost without exception , display baptism performed by affusion, i.e., the recipient is seen standing in water while the minister pours water on the head.' (Stanley J. Grenz, 'Theology for the Community of God', 1994)

This author identifies immersion as 'going underwater':

• 'The best parallel we have for the baptism of John may be the immersion of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip, which was clearly not a case of pouring but of going underwater in a natural flow or reservoir encountered by the travelers on the road between Jerusalem and Gaza.' (Joan E. Taylor, 'The Immerser', 1997)

This author (speaking of Jewish rituals), does the same:

• 'Presumably D5 and D6 apply to men and women alike; after completing the immersion (D5) - that is, after submerging totally in the water and emerging - the convert, whether male or female, is deemed to be like an Israelite in all respects (D6).' (Shaye J. D. Cohen, 'The Beginnings of Jewishness', 2001)

This author does the same:

• 'The baptism of John did have certain similarities to the ritual washings at Qumran: both invovled withdrawal to the desert to await the lord; both were linked to an ascetic lifestyle; both included total immersion in water; and both had an eschatological context.' (Maxwell E. Johnson, 'Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation', 1995)

And again:

• 'This ritual is the ultimate source of the form of John's ritual which apparently involved total immersion in water.'(Maxwell E. Johnson, 'Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation', 1995)

Another author also distinguishes immersion from the traditional image of John the Baptist pouring water over Jesus' head:

• 'The fact that he chose a permanent and deep river suggests that more than a token quantity of water was needed, and both the preposition "in" (the Jordan) and the basic meaning of the verb "baptize" probably indicate immersion. In v. 16 Matthew will speak of Jesus "coming up out of the water." The traditional depiction in Christian art of John the Baptist pouring water over Jesus' head may therefore be based on later Christian practice.' (R. T. France, 'The Gospel of Matthew', 2007)

The same author makes it clear he is using the term 'immersion' as a reference to dipping, plunging, burying, not to 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head':

• 'BDAG translates baptizw as "plunge, dip, wash" as well as "baptize"; they mention non-Christian usage outside a ritual context as "to put or go under water in a variety of senses." The symbolism of death, burial, and resurrection found in later Christian baptism (Rom 6:3-4) also suggests immersion. See further R.L. Webb. John, 179-180. J.E. Taylor, John, 49-58, also argues for immersion (probably self-immersion) and translates Job's title as "John the Immerser."'

Again, same author (different work):

• 'This indicates that the metaphor is perhaps less surprising than we might first think, but none of these "liquid" references to the Spirit easily allows the idea of dipping or immersion.' (R. T. France, 'The Gospel of Mark', 2002)

Another author:

• 'Nevertheless, it's abundantly clear that while the meal and table companionship after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension did remain distinguishing characteristics of the Christian community (cf. Acts 2:42), a community that came even to place the banquet table at the architectural center of its assembly places, rites called either baptisma (baptism, immersion, or dipping) or loutron (bath or washing) came almost immediately to serve as the means of initiation into this community.' (Maxwell E. Johnson, 'The Rites of Christian Initiation', 2007)

Even this author, hostile against submersion, uses 'immersion' to refer to submersion, not to 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head':

• 'In some cases, the width is also insufficient for the immersion of any but small children, despite the presence of large numbers of adult candidates in this early period.' (Ralph E. Bass, Jr., Ralph E Bass, 'What about Baptism', 1999)
• 'The baptismal fonts still found among the ruins of the most ancient Greek churches in Palestine, as at Tekoa and Gophna, and going back apparently to the very early times, are not large enough to admit of the baptism of adult persons by immersion, and were obviously never intended for that use.' (Ralph E. Bass, Jr., Ralph E Bass, 'What about Baptism', 1999)
• 'As can be seen from the Old Syriac Version of the New Testament, from the Didache, from the early baptismal fonts, and from the Catacombs, baptisms in the very early church, were done by pouring or sprinkling, not by immersion.' (Ralph E. Bass, Jr., Ralph E Bass, 'What about Baptism', 1999)

Yet another author identifying 'immersed in' as 'dipped in', not as 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head':

• 'There is a sense in v. 27 that in being dipped in (immersed in) the anointed, one envelops/dyes/covers oneself with the anointed.' (David W. Odell-Scott, 'Paul's Critique of Theocracy', 2003)

And yet another:

• 'Basil of Caesarea took the sign of Jonah a step further and interpreted Jonah's three days in the belly of the monster as a figure of the triple immersion in baptism. Since Christian baptism is itself a symbol of Jesus' passion, death, and resurrection, the baptismal connection would be logical even without the added detail of the water - water into which Jonah is tossed and the initiate is immersed. Jonah's nudity thus symbolizes the nudity of the candidates for baptism as they are dipped and "reborn" from the womblike waters of the baptismal font.' (Robin Margaret Jensen, 'Understanding Early Christian Art', 2000)

I just don't find this curious definition of 'immersion' ('standing in water while someone pours water on your head'), used in the reliable sources. I don't even find it mentioned in the standard dictionary definitions of the English word. You keep appealing to a the Oxford Dictionary of Christianity for the claim that 'immerse' means 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head', but you can't even provide a page reference, let alone a quote. Given that all the other reliable sources use the word 'immerse' with its standard English meaning of 'submerge', you're not providing any evidence for your argument.

Finally you quote 'The One Baptism and the Many Baptisms by Ralph G. Wilburn', which is ironic given that this is a theological source you're trying to use to prove a historical point, after I've been told here not to do that. Schaff is a proper historical source, but unfortunately he doesn't provide anything in the way of evidence, simply personal opinion. You have failed to explain why you are rejecting the reliable sources. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No matter how many cases you quote of people using "immerse" to mean submerge, there is such a thing as partial immersion. (If you don't believe me, Google the phrase.) So "immerse", unless accompanied by "total", "complete", "full" or some such word, does not have to mean submerge. Lima (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not disputing that there is such a thing as 'partial immersion'. If you're not going to read what I write, and if you're going to continue to to ignore the reliable sources, it's time for RfC. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Then please help me understand. What is it you want changed in the article and why? Please be brief. Lima (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have told you exactly what I want changed in the article. I changed it and explained my changes here, providing reliable sources and answering every question with more reliable sources. You understood what I want changed, but you said you didn't want it changed. Since you aren't prepared to follow Wikipedia policy, there's not much to say here, is there? --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Tb hasn't taken the RfC as an opportunity to explain what he wants changed and why. My understanding is that he wants to use the term "immersion" for "baptism" when referring to the Didache, and his stated reason is that some RSs do, and his apparent reason is that he thinks this term refers to total immersion. Leadwind (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You already know exactly what I want changed, and why. I have explained it several times, and you've made it clear more than once that you understand it. Yes, I want to use the term 'immersion' for 'baptism' when referring to the Didache, and yes my stated reason is that the reliable sources I have found do. This isn't simply a case of 'some' reliable sources (WP:WEASEL), it's a case of the overwhelming number of them. As to the meaning of the English word 'immersion', you can look it up in a standard dictionary. But whether it means what I think it means, or what you think it means, is irrelevant. The issue under discussion is the term 'immersion' for 'baptizing' when referring to the Didache, since that is overwhelmingly the term used by the reliable sources.

My understanding is that you and Lima resist this change on the basis that it does not reflect your personal point of view. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please dont confuse the terms used to describe the act (i.e. "immersion" and/or "pouring") with the name of the ritual: "baptism". The Terms "immersion" and/or "pouring" describe how physically the ritual is performed, the term "baptism" is a theological term. English is enough rich to have three different words. In the 1st century (didaché time) the term for the ritual did not existed yet, and to name the ritual it was usually used the term of the act (immersion). But it was explicitly clear that the baptism (ritual) could be done also by pouring. English has three clear different terms: let's use them. So I oppose Taiwan boi propose/edit. Of course we could mention that some denomination (which?) likes use the term "immersion" also to name the ritual, not only to name the way to perform it. A ntv (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not confusing anything. This issue is perfectly clear. A significant number of reliable sources say that the BAPTIZW of the Didache was specifically immersion. No one, including you, has provided any reason as to why they should not be quoted in the article, and the article's content altered accordingly, instead of the ambiguous English term 'baptize' being used. Furthermore, the Didache specifically distinguishes pouring from BAPTIZW, demonstrating that the BAPTIZW intended by the Didache was not pouring. Pouring was an alternative available only in extremis. To the writers of the Didache, BAPTIZW meant immersion, not pouring. That isn't my idea, that isn't the idea of some denomination, it's the understanding of a wide range of reliable sources, which I have quoted here at length. You are simply not addressing the facts. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Tb, if you want to make the point that early-church baptism was by total immersion, rather than by standing in living water and having water poured over your head, just find a source that says so. You have sources that say early-church baptism was by "immersion," but the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says that this term is used for the method of baptism by which someone stood in water and had water poured over their head. Leadwind (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are attributing to me a claim I am not making. I am simply pointing out that the list of reliable sources I have given states clearly that the BAPTIZW of the Didache was by immersion. I have no problem with that, because I don't dispute reliable sources. I am happy for them to be quoted here, as Wikipedia policy requires. You have a problem with that, because the reliable sources disagree with your personal beliefs, as you've made clear. But your beliefs and my beliefs are irrelevant. Only Wikipedia policy matters, and in this case the edit conforms to Wikipedia policy and your obstruction does not.

As I pointed out previously, it doesn't matter what the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says (in that oft appealed to but still entirely unconfirmed and still incompletely referenced quote), because it is clear from the writings of the reliable sources themselves that when they used the word 'immersion' they did not mean 'someone stood in water and had water poured over their head'.

As it happens, I also provided a long list of reliable sources who also stated clearly that the BAPTIZW of the Didache was specifically by total immersion (only because you asked, not because it was relevant to my case). You haven't dealt with this either. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Tb, my personal belief had been that, contrary to my Lutheran upbringing, the Baptists were right and early Christian baptism was by total immersion. But then I bought a serious RS (ODCC), and it told me otherwise. I believe the ODCC because that's what early Christian art shows and because I've never seen good evidence that it's wrong. Show me again the historical, non-Baptist source that says straight up that the Didache is referring to total immersion, and I'll gladly plug it into the page myself. Leadwind (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. I have been through this with you before. I want the article to say what the relaible sources actually say. They say specifically that the BAPTIZW of the Didache was 'immersion', not more vaguely 'baptizing'. That is what I want the article to say.

Here's the list of reliable sources saying the BAPTIZW of the Didache was 'immersion', not more vaguely 'baptizing':

• Metzger, Marcel (1997). "The Order of Baptism in the Didache". History of the Liturgy: The Major Stages. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. pp. 25–26. ISBN 0-8146-2433-2. "The Didache recognizes the superior value of running water for the baptismal immersion but does not impose it as a necessary condition… The regulations of the Didache also forsee the case in which immersion is impossible for lack of water and prescribe baptism by pouring water three times on the candidate's head."
• Lacoste, Jean-Yves (2005). Encyclopedia of Christian Theology: G–O. Milton Park: Routledge. p. 1607. ISBN 0-5795-8250-8. "According to the Didache (1st century), baptism should be done by a triple immersion in running water."
• Meeks, Wayne A. (2006). "Baptism: ritual of initiation". in Margaret Mary Mitchell and Frances Margaret Young. The Cambridge History of Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 160-161. ISBN 0-521-81239-9. "The Didache, representing practice perhaps as early as the beginning of the second century, probably in Syria, also assumes immersion to be normal, but it allows that if sufficient water for immersion is not at hand, water may be poured three times over the head (7:3)."
• Dau, W. H. T. (1995). "Baptism". in Geoffrey W. Bromiley. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: A–D. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. pp. 410–426. ISBN 0-8028-3781-6. http://books.google.com/books?id=BW_1mt4oebQC&pg=PA410. "This seems to say that to baptize by immersion was the practice recommended for general use, but that the mode of affusion was also valid and enjoined on occasions."
• Ibid, page 416, 'There is thus no doubt that early in the 2nd cent. some Christians felt baptism was so important that, when the real baptism (immersion) could not be performed because of lack of water, pouring might be used in its place.', 'It is to be noted that for pouring another word (ekcheo) is used, clearly showing that baptizo does not mean "pour."'
• 'The immersion in water at the hands of a recognized mentor had the effect of permanently and irreversibly transforming the identity of the one being baptized.' (Aaron Milavec, 'The Didache', 2003)
• 'Alon identified a series of early halakhot in the text of the Didache, ranging from the areas of abortion and infanticide, magic, and slavery in the Jewish "Two Ways" part, to prayer, fasting, immersion or baptism, and priestly offerings in the "Christian" part. (Hubertus Waltherus, Maria van de Sandt, 'Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-christian Milieu?', 2005)
• 'More likely, Niederwimmer, Die Didache, 163 supposes that the graded qualification of immersion water was adopted wholesale from Jewish tradition' (Ibid)
• 'The argument of the section is clear: while adhering strictly to the preference for flowing water and baptism by immersion, necessary concessions are made to local circumstances.' (Jonathan Draper, 'The Didache in Modern Research', 1996)
• 'The baptismal ceremony follows the Syriac custom of annointing before the immersion with the Trinitarian formula (16).' (Everett Ferguson, Michael P. McHugh, Frederick W. Norris, 'Encyclopedia of Early Christianity', 1999)
• 'Baptism in the Didache was to be in "living," that is, in running water. This suggests that baptism at this time was normally by immersion.' (Laurie Guy, Laurie Guy, PhD, 'Introducing Early Christianity', 2004)
• 'Eastern tradition strongly defended the practice of threefold immersion under the waters, but Latin practice increasingly came to use a sprinkling of water on the head (also mentioned in Didache 7 if there was not sufficient water for immersion.)' (John Anthony McGuckin, 'The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology', 2004)

You know as well as I do that 'early Christian art' depicting baptism the way you like it to be done isn't even found until the 3rd century, so you can't possibly claim that this is evidence it was the 1st century practice. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, guys, I came in response to the RFC, and am having, well, a difficult time figuring out what you all are arguing about. Maybe, could somehow provide a synopsis, please? John Carter (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem? --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, basically, I have no idea what the RfC was filed for, and, on that basis, can't really comment on something I don't know what I was asked to comment on? John Carter (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

apostolic-age, 2nd-century baptism

Today, when you go to church, almost everyone there is baptized. In the first century or so after Jesus, lots of the folks at church were not baptized. They were catechumens, learning about Christianity but not yet ready to take the commitment of baptism. Baptism was a big commitment because it was a one-time sin wash. Any sin you committed after baptism, could mean trouble. Until about 50 or so, joining up also meant becoming a Jew, subjecting oneself to Jewish restrictions, and (for men) undergoing circumcision. Even after Christianity became Gentile, expectations on Christian behavior were high, sex abstinence was recommended, and women dedicated as virgins were common in the congregations. The Catechumens, furthermore, were apparently shown the door when it was time for the Eucharist (per the Didache). I don't know whether they were in on the Kiss of Peace.

Manicheans would later adopt a similar structure, with scripture read in church, and different levels of membership, including an "outsider" group known as hearers.

Anyway, when this article describes baptism as an initiatory rite into full membership within the Body of Christ, we should inform the reader that this meant something different to the first Christians. Baptism didn't just make you a member of the congregation. Baptism took you from being an "honorary member," perhaps already a long-time believer, to "full member." Christian churches hardly have catechumens any more, so this ancient distinction is commonly overlooked.

Does anyone know more and want to contribute? Leadwind (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this hold for the Apostolic Age? The New Testament accounts present baptism as being carried out immediately, with little instruction. Think, for instance, of the great number immediately baptized in Jerusalem after Peter's Pentecost Day sermon, or the Philippi jailer and his household baptized in the short time between being wakened by an earthquake and the arrival in the morning of the city officials with orders to release Paul. Lima (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I could contribute, using reliable sources, but you have a thing for deleting reliable sources. And what a surprise, Lima is the first to respond. Looking over the article's history I can see a clear case of WP:OWN. Is there a reason why you loaded the article with Roman Catholic terminology? --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Lima, maybe it doesn't hold for the apostolic age, except that it's in the Didache. That's where we first read of excluding the non-baptized from the Eucharist, isn't it? Of course, I don't know if that's from the early part of the Didache or a later edition. If it's not apostolic, I think it's at least as old as the second century, anyway. Leadwind (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Tb, if you take me for a Catholic partisan, then I'm doing a good job of hiding my POV. I'm no Catholic, as Lima can well attest. Leadwind (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you were a Catholic, or even a Catholic partisan. I note you side stepped the real point I made, which was that the article is loaded with Roman Catholic terminology. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Leadwind, I perhaps do not understand you. Why do you think that, before the Didache, non-baptized people shared the Eucharist (or Lord's Supper or whatever you want to call the rite) along with the Christians? The earliest account, that in 1 Corinthians, seems to speak of it as a meal that was peculiar to Christians, and Paul addresses the Corinthian Christians as people who have all been baptized, though - apart from a very few exceptions - not by himself. Lima (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on withthe catachumens and the Lord's Supper. Is it a matter of time? Maybe in Paul's day there were no catachumens, and by the time of the Didiache (which edition?) there were. Or is it that the Didache represents the Jerusalem practice, in which catachumens were common (partly because men didn't want their foreskins cut) and in Paul's churches they weren't common (because they could keep their foreskins whole)? Leadwind (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the Didache speak of catechumens? Perhaps I have missed its reference to catechumens. Or was the catechumenate introduced later? Why do you say there were catechumens in Jerusalem at that time? Yes there were, not only in Jerusalem but also elsewhere, people who attended synagogue and largely observed the Jewish law but who hadn't become Jews by circumcision, but as you know well that is not the same as being catechumens preparing for baptism. As far as I can see, the catechumenate, in which people were given instruction in Christian faith and practice, can have begun only when that faith and practice had developed further than belief that Jesus of Nazareth was risen from the dead and was the Messiah whom the Jews awaited and the saviour for those who accepted him. Lima (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

On second look, the Didache only refer to not letting the unbaptized participate in the meal. Maybe that's implying there there were catechumens in the congregations, but I don't know. Leadwind (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church

I would like someone to provide the complete quote from the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church which is cited several times in this article. To date no one has provided the relevant quote, or even supplied the page number. I find this curious. If someone has actually sighted the quote in this work, then surely they can provide the full quote in context. This is a matter of verifiability.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Several ODCC articles are cited. Is this the one you want (from p. 1563)?

submersion (also 'total immersion" or, loosely, 'immersion). The form of Baptism in which the water completely covers the candidate's body. Though immersion is now also common, submersion is practised in the Orthodox and several of the other E. Churches, as well as in the Ambrosian rite. It is one of the methods provided in the 1969 RC rite for the Baptism of Infants. On the basis of Rom. 6: 3-11 it has been generally supposed to have been the custom of the early Church, but this view has been challenged by C. F. Rogers from the evidence of primitive pictorial representations and measurements of surviving early baptismal fonts.

This is followed by a short bibliography. Lima (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Or "immersion. A method of Baptism, employed at least from the 2nd century, whereby part of the candidate's body was submerged in the baptismal water which was poured over the remainder. The rite is still found in the E Church. In the W, it began to be replaced from c the 8th cent by the method of affusion, though its use was still being encouraged in the 16th cent., as it still is in the Anglican and RC churches. The term is occasionally loosely used to include submersion, from which it is strictly to be distinguished." ODCC p. 827. Leadwind (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Continuation of Taiwan boi's talk

I have found the following quote in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church:

'Baptism. The sacramental rite, involving the use of water, by which a candidate is admitted to the Church. It is clear that it goes back to the earliest days from the many references in Acts and in the Epistles of St Paul. Traditionally it has been held that Christ Himself instituted the sacrament, but how far He made His intentions explicit, or indeed envisaged the Church as a continuing institution, is now disputed.'

The entire article uses Catholic terminology throughout (including 'Eucharist' and referring to Augustine as 'Saint Augustine', and is almost entirely about Catholic baptismal rites, with very little mention of anything else. It's clear this article was written from a Catholic perspective. In the section under 'immersion' I have found the following:

'immersion. A method of Baptism, whereby part of the candidate's body is submerged in the baptismal water which is poured over the remainder. It is still found in E. Church. In the W. it has largely been replaced by affusion, though it is still officially encouraged in the Anglican and RC Churches.'

I note with interest that this uses a definition of 'immersion' which is different to the standard English meaning of the term, and different to a host of other sources I have already quoted here. In fact it's even different to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The most ancient form usually employed was unquestionably immersion. This is not only evident from the writings of the Fathers and the early rituals of both the Latin and Oriental Churches, but it can also be gathered from the Epistles of St. Paul, who speaks of baptism as a bath (Ephesians 5:26; Romans 6:4; Titus 3:5). In the Latin Church, immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century. After that time it is found in some places even as late as the sixteenth century. Infusion and aspersion, however, were growing common in the thirteenth century and gradually prevailed in the Western Church. The Oriental Churches have retained immersion, though not always in the sense of plunging the candidate's entire body below the water. Billuart (De Bapt., I, iii) says that commonly the catechumen is placed in the font, and then water is poured upon the head. He cites the authority of Goar for this statement.'

It is clear that the Catholic Encyclopedia not only says that immersion was the oldest form, but also differentiates immersion from placing the catechumen in the font and pouring water on the head.

The current Encyclopedia Britannica says:

'Two points of controversy still exist in modern times. One is baptism by pouring or sprinkling water on the head rather than by immersion of the entire body, even though immersion was probably the biblical and early Christian rite.'

This uses the word 'immersion' in the sense of 'immersion of the entire body', and says that 'immersion was probably the biblical and early Christian rite'. It differentiates immersion from pouring water on the head.

The current Catholic Catechism says:

'"Buried with Christ. . ." 628 Baptism, the original and full sign of which is immersion, efficaciously signifies the descent into the tomb by the Christian who dies to sin with Christ in order to live a new life. "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."

'1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.'

Once more it is clear that the meaning of 'immersion' here is not 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head', but submersion.

It is therefore demonstrable that the definition of 'immersion' used in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church:

• Is not found in any standard English dictionary, and is therefore a non-standard use of the English term
• Is not found in any standard reliable sources on the subject, including a standard general encyclopedia (Britannica), and two standard Catholic sources (the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Catechism)
• Is contradicted by the very different definition used in a very wide range of reliable sources, (which also agree with the standard English meaning of the word)

So why is this source being used, when it is in opposition to all these other reliable sources? This is cherry picking. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, so now we have two RSs that say different things. Thanks for finding a source that says exactly what you want to say. (Maybe not exactly, since it only says you're "probably" right.) EB says total immersion was probably original, and ODCC says partial immersion was probably original. Let's cite them both and say that the experts disagree, as they apparently do. As a show of good faith, if you give me the data, I'll plug the citation into the page myself. Leadwind (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a mattero f me finding a source that says exactly what I want to say. I already provided a host of sources which define immersion in the same way. They're listed above. This isn't a matter of cherrypicking on my part, it's what the overwhelming majority of the reliable sources say. Furthermore, I think you have to look a bit closely at all the reliable sources. There's a difference between saying what the practice was in 'Early Christianity' (a very general term which covers several centuries), and what the practice was in the apostolic and post-apostolic era (a very specific term, with a far narrower chronological scope). Does the ODCC really say that partial immersion was the original practice of the apostolic era? --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ODCC really comes down on the side of partial immersion, with submersion (total immersion) apparently not practiced at any time in the early church. Leadwind (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitions

I included a large section on the definition of the relevant words, which was extensively referenced. It not only included far more relevant information than was given in the article, it also restored the balance to that section (which previously had only one reference, and only represented one POV). Lima, you clearly disagreed with the sources quoted, and simply removed what you didn't like.

• You removed all reference to the distinction between βάπτισμα and βαπτισμός. Why?
• You glossed them both as simply 'baptism', in contradiction to what the lexical sources say. Why?
• You removed reference to the fact that the 'ablutions' included in the word BAPTIZW are specifically ablutions carried out by immersion. Why?
• You removed all information on βαπτω. Why? --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove all reference to the distinction between βάπτισμα and βαπτισμός. In NT, the latter mostly refers to "ordinary" washing, but in Col 2:12 it is used of the Christian idea of baptism, like βάπτισμα.

I did not gloss over them both as simply baptism: βαπτισμός does not always have that meaning (4 times out of 5 in NT it does not), βάπτισμα probably does, at least in a metaphorical sense.

We are considering the verb βαπτίζω and its derivatives βάπτισμα and βαπτισμός, all of which are, at least in some contexts, correctly translated as "baptize" or "baptism". As far as I know, the cognate word βάπτω was never used to mean "baptize".

You included a large section that is off-topic, on βάπτω, for instance, and the many statements about the standard meaning of βαπτίζω, which is irrelevant to the question whether there are any cases in which a non-standard meaning is implied.

I did not simply revert, as you did. I added more material, apposite material. Lima (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You did remove all my references to the distinction between βάπτισμα and βαπτισμός. You replaced it with one of your own which completely omitted to mention the key point the lexicons make about the difference. There is no dispute that βαπτισμός can refer to Christian baptism, and that was already pointed out in the material I included. But βάπτισμα is a different word with an even more specific meaning, and you omitted that.

The section on βάπτω is by no means offtopic, since βάπτω is one of the words under question in this subject. That is precisely why the lexicons address it, and I provided references. The standard meaning of βαπτίζω is certainly relevant, because all the lexicons say that the standard meaning as used in the Septuagint and the New Testament is 'dip', 'immerse', or 'ablutions by immersion'. You omitted this. You can't say you simply added more material, when you took so much material out.

You did gloss both βάπτισμα and βαπτισμός as 'baptism'. You said 'Two nouns, βάπτισμα and βαπτισμός (baptism)'. You removed reference to the fact that the 'ablutions' included in the word BAPTIZW are specifically ablutions carried out by immersion. Why?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwan boi (talk • contribs)

I am sorry if I did wrong. But please tell me first what is the even more specific meaning of βάπτισμα to which you refer? Something more specific than the Christian idea of baptism (baptism by John, Christian baptism, and the metaphorical use "I have a baptism with which I must be baptized")?

Where is βάπτω found in NT? At a first attempt, I have only found the compound form of the verb in the phrase ἐμβαπτόμενος μετ' ἐμοῦ εἰς τὸ τρυβλίον in Mark 14:20. Is βάπτω ever used to mean "baptize" or "baptism", even outside NT. And don't forget that the section is headed "The meaning of the word in the New Testament"

The topic of the article is baptism. That is why I indicated that both βάπτισμα and βαπτισμός can mean "baptism". They may have other meanings also. Indeed in the article I have said that they do. Just as I have said that βαπτίζω has other meanings.

Of course the standard meaning is relevant, but there is no purpose in giving so many citations to indicate the undisputed standard meaning of βαπτίζω. If you gave instead a citation of someone's opinion that the word never has any other meaning, that instead would be something appropriate to put beside the citations of the opinion of several scholars who hold that it does have other meanings. (By the way, since βαπτισμός, as you agree, has several meanings, it is not at all surprising that the verb βαπτίζω, from which βαπτισμός is derived, also has several meanings.)

Yes, I did omit your claim that "such ablutions were typically performed by immersion". Not only is your statement flatly contradicted by the Jewish sources that state that their before-meals ablutions are not carried out by immersion, even by immersion of the hands, but the source that you cited only says that "washing or ablution was frequently by immersion", but does not say that it was by immersion in Luke 11:38, as your statement would have it. But if you think that citation so important, and actually inserted it twice in your version, I will put it into my version, but only once, as an example of support for the standard idea of βαπτίζω. I think, however, that some other much more appropriate quotation could be cited. Lima (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You are not answering my questions.

• You removed all my references to the distinction between βάπτισμα and βαπτισμός. You replaced it with one of your own which completely omitted to mention the key point the lexicons make about the difference between these two words. Why?
• You glossed both βάπτισμα and βαπτισμός as 'baptism', eliminating the lexical definitions, which are far more precise. Why?
• You removed the lexicon definition of βαπτισμός as 'a religious technical term related to ceremonial rites of purification by the use of water act of dipping, immersion'. Why? This is the specific meaning you omitted.
• You removed the lexicon definition of βάπτισμα which identifies its New Testament use is to differentiate Christian baptism as an act different to the sprinkling and pouring of the Jewish ceremonial rituals (>'Bבptisma must not be confused with baptismףs (909), ceremonial washing', and 'The suffix -ma indicates the result of the act of dipping'). Why? This is the specific meaning you omitted.

Your current edit says that there's no debate about the standard meaning of the word βαπτίζω, but doesn't say what that standard meaning is. It then contradicts itself by saying that some scholars do dispute this standard meaning, in two passages.

If you haven't found βάπτω in the New Testament, it's clear you haven't looked very hard. You certainly haven't read the lexical sources I quoted, which identify βάπτω in the New Testament:

• 'The NT uses גβάπτω only in the literal sense, in Lk. 16:24; Jn. 13:26 for “to dip in,” and in Rev. 19:13 for “to dye”.', Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (1:530). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans
• ' to dip someth. in a liquid, dip, dip in J 13:26', Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G907). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.;
• 'גβάπτωפש fut. גרש; 1aor. ἔגברב; pf. pass. ptc. גוגבללםןע; (1) dip in or under, immerse in a liquid (LU 16.24); (2) as coloring cloth dip into dye, dye (RV 19.13)', Friberg, T., Friberg, B., & Miller, N. F. (2000). Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker's Greek New Testament library (87). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books'
• '970 גנפש (baptō): vb.; ≡ DBLHebr 3188; Str 911; TDNT 1.529—LN 47.11 dip in (Lk 16:24; Jn 13:26(2׳); Rev 19:13+)', Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains  : Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.) (DBLG 970). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc'

The lexical source I gave as saying that such ablutions were typically performed by immersion does not contradict the article you cited in any way whatsoever. If you had actually read the article in the Jewish Encyclopedia, you would have seen that it speaks of current Jewish practice as pouring. It does not say that 1st century ablutions were always by pouring. On the contrary, it specifically says 'In the course of time it became customary to pour water three times upon the hands to cleanse them from impurity', and the article makes clear that this was post-1st century practice. But that aside, you still didn't give a reason why a 1906 encyclopedia of Judaism is supposed to be a better source for the meaning of Greek words than a modern lexicon.

Furthermore, you've misread the lexical source I quoted. It doesn't claim that all ablutions were by immersion, and nor did I. It says however that those ablutions referred to by βαπτίζω were immersions. You have provided nothing which contradicts this. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that we are going into an Original Research. The issue of this Talk page is NOT to find which POV about the original meaning of the Greek work 'baptizo' is the right one, but to list all the POV. Please remember that all the solution provided by scholars are only guesses, some more probable, some less probable, but we have not a description of a Christian baptize (or of a Jewish ablution) up to the IV century. For example: to say "In the course of time it became customary to pour water three times upon the hands" is a scholar guess, there is not primary literature (text of the first centuries) to say it. Even in this case we shall NOT estrapolate the meaning of the sentence: for example what was probably later than 1 century was the "three times", not the puoring. Scholars usually use vague sentences or and in disagreement simply because there is not any first century description: we shall not extrapolate from scholar sentences what is not there A ntv (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with original research. Quoting from standard lexicons is not original research. The point of the 'definition' section in the article is to provide for the reader what scholarly sources say is the definition of the Greek word 'baptizo'. Any other POVs must be notable, from reliable sources. Do you have any? The answers to this are consistent right across the standard lexicons. There is no debate about this issue among lexicographers.

I don't know what you mean when you say 'we have not a description of a Christian baptize (or of a Jewish ablution) up to the IV century', because we certainly do. We have several. Furthermore, if you want to contest the accuracy of the statement 'In the course of time it became customary to pour water three times upon the hands', I suggest you find a reliable source which says otherwise. Until you do so, you're just making things up. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what you say, or at least much of it, makes sense. (I admit I have had to rush my reading of it since my return.) I have split the section into subsections, keeping all that you have said about the normal meaning of the verb, although I still don't see of what use it is to elaborate on that. Let's see what you think of it now. Lima (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that division makes sense. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving?

This talk page is 292 kB long. I think the time to consider archiving has come. John Carter (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree Lima (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Apostasy

There's no mention in the article about something which is being practiced at least in Italy, Germany and Belgium. It's a form of religious disaffiliation, done by editing the entry of the apostate's baptism in the parish register, on which generally a note is added, stating that said person has left the Church and is no longer to be considered adherent to their religion. Here in Italy it's called "Sbattezzo", which means to remove or nullify baptism, and it has become something of an institution with its national day on October 25. Some of the most compelling reasons behind such an active refusal of religion are Italian laws such as Eight per thousand, and the major hold of the Vatican on Italian and international politics. It is practiced mostly by atheists, couples in convivenza more uxorio living where Civil unions are not legal and considered immoral, young social activists, and members of the LGBT community.--Jinger (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This looks legit and worthy of mention. See online article. But we need a reliable source. Leadwind (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The matter is already dealt with in Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica. Though the promoters of the campaign in Italy use the term "sbattezzo" (Italian for "to debaptize", "to unbaptize"), formal defection from the Church obviously cannot undo the fact of having being baptized, making a person no longer baptized; it does not in fact "remove or nullify baptism", and so it is not directly related to this article. Lima (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Infant Baptism

The topic of infant baptism comes up repeatedly in this article. Perhas all of the discussion around this topic could be gathered together in a section of its own - or since it is a broad topic which people have debated about for centuries, perhaps a separate article could be written about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MayFlowerNorth (talk • contribs) 23:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Baptism by Jesus

OK, I finally found the source for the comments I made above regarding the possibility of baptism by Jesus, although that source is not necessarily itself the best of all possible sources. The book is The Secret Gospel by Morton Smith, Harper & Row, 1973, ISBN 0-06-067411-3. It is probably most extensively covered in the chapter "The Secret Baptism", which runs from pages 97 throughh 114. The material to verify it was found in the Mar Saba letter, which according to that article is now lost, thus rendering the question a very debatable one, but its conclusions regarding the Carpocratians at least seem to have been accepted, so there might be some cause for thinking the document valid, even if no longer locatable. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)