Poll: Modes of Baptism

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective

Check all that apply...

1. I think churches should only practice submersion.
2
5%
2. I think churches should only practice pouring.
2
5%
3. I think churches should only practice sprinkling.
0
No votes
4. I am fine with a variety of practices as long as the person gets really wet.
3
8%
5. I prefer immersion of one sort or another but am fine making exceptions for invalids, elderly, airport baptisms, etc.
12
31%
6. I am fine with churches having a default way to baptize, but think they should offer alternatives for those with a different preference.
12
31%
7. I think churches should have one method and stick with that. I am not particular on which mode they choose.
5
13%
8. Other
3
8%
 
Total votes: 39

MaxPC
Posts: 9120
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: Former full time RVers
Affiliation: PlainRomanCatholic
Contact:

Re: Poll: Modes of Baptism

Post by MaxPC »

Neto wrote: Thu Feb 29, 2024 1:28 pm
Ernie wrote: Thu Feb 29, 2024 8:19 am
Mark 7:3-4
(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, keeping the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they have washed. And there are many other customs they have received and keep, like the washing of cups, pitchers, kettles, and dining couches.)
For those of you who believe that the Greek word βαπτίσωνται means submerse or immerse, is it your understanding that the dining couches (being referenced here in Mark) got submersed or immersed in water?
Josh wrote: Thu Feb 29, 2024 10:36 am κλινῶν could mean “bed” or “table”; presumably people don’t eat on their beds, and the term was in common use to mean a lounge type of chair to recline on when eating.

If you take it to mean “table” then I would ask if you think they fully immerse their dining room table before eating.

Here are the NET’s notes regarding some translations which omit it:
Several important witnesses (Ì45vid א B L Δ 28* pc) lack “and dining couches” (καὶ κλινῶν, kai klinwn), while the majority of mss (A D W Θ Ë1,13 33 Ï latt) have the reading. Although normally the shorter reading is to be preferred, especially when it is backed by excellent witnesses as in this case, there are some good reasons to consider καὶ κλινῶν as authentic: (1) Although the addition of κλινῶν could be seen as motivated by a general assimilation to the purity regulations in Lev 15 (as some have argued), there are three problems with such a supposition: (a) the word κλίνη (klinh) does not occur in the LXX of Lev 15; (b) nowhere in Lev 15 is the furniture washed or sprinkled; and (c) the context of Lev 15 is about sexual impurity, while the most recent evidence suggests that κλίνη in Mark 7:4, in keeping with the other terms used here, refers to a dining couch (cf. BDAG 549 s.v. κλίνη 2). Thus, it is difficult to see καὶ κλινῶν as a motivated reading. (2) κλίνη, though a relatively rare term in the NT, is in keeping with Markan usage (cf. Mark 4:21; 7:30). (3) The phrase could have been dropped accidentally, at least in some cases, via homoioteleuton. (4) The phrase may have been deliberately expunged by some scribes who thought the imagery of washing a dining couch quite odd. The longer reading, in this case, can thus be argued as the harder reading. On balance, even though a decision is difficult (especially because of the weighty external evidence for the shorter reading), it is preferable to retain καὶ κλινῶν in the text.
I find this very intriguing, and now I’m curious as to if there are similar textual questions in cross references in the other Gospels, and if so, if the same words are used in those places. (I must rush back to work, so do not have time to look at it myself, now.)

The only Gospel I translated was Luke, so I didn’t encounter this particular textual problem. I’ll just say that although it is rare for the Greek text I used (Nestle-Aland, as I recall) to leave out a phrase that is found in early manuscripts (as in this case), and also considering the reasoning given in the NET notes, I am surprised that these words are omitted. I should also explain that the reasons to include it as per the NET note Josh provided are following one of the most stressed rules for textual criticism – that the most difficult reading must be given serious consideration, because it is much more likely that a scribe will leave out difficult wording than to add it. (The same is the case in rules of interpretation – the most difficult interpretation deserves extra consideration., or weight) It may be that the perceived “dissonance” between ‘baptize’ and ‘dining couch’ was the reason for excluding the words. However, my interlinear (all I have time to look at in the time I have now) glosses ‘batismous’ as ‘washings’. Similar renderings for different forms of ‘bapitdzo’ are glossed and translated as ‘washing’ in texts such as the one where a Pharisee got on Jesus’ case for skipping the ceremonial hand washing before sitting down to a meal.
Then to make it even more complex, there are differences in the "washing" rituals of the Jerusalem Jews and the Greek Jews (as well as others).
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
Post Reply