Reading and benefitting from media from the first centuries AD

[Soloist]

I could see doing voices for people here... but I could also see never ever sharing it as someone would likely get offended at my selection.

[temporal1]

I could see doing voices for people here... but I could also see never ever sharing it as someone would likely get offended at my selection.

(in my imagination, piqued by Pelerin) ..
it would need be in the spirit of love and fun, which Robert so effectively nurtures on forum - - not 100%!

but, o.to hear-view Pelerin’s original, unvarnished work, that would have been precious.

.. Easter Sunday .. He is risen

[Bootstrap]

Patheos / Communal Reading In The Ancient World & The Early Church
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith ... ly-church/

In the ancient world, people read out loud, even when they were by themselves.

This is a really good article - the early church was oral, most churches today are in oral cultures, podcasts and Zoom are making our own culture more oral, but most scholarship engages with written texts and analytical approaches. Most commentaries are based on that. That distorts the way we read Scripture in interesting ways.

In the Bible translation community, a lot of people are into orality these days.

[temporal1]

Patheos / Communal Reading In The Ancient World & The Early Church
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith ... ly-church/

In the ancient world, people read out loud, even when they were by themselves.

This is a really good article - the early church was oral, most churches today are in oral cultures, podcasts and Zoom are making our own culture more oral, but most scholarship engages with written texts and analytical approaches. Most commentaries are based on that. That distorts the way we read Scripture in interesting ways.

In the Bible translation community, a lot of people are into orality these days.

Another Easter miracle.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

I am not aware of infant baptism being practiced for sure before the early 200's.

Tertullian mentions infant baptism in a writing dated ~200-206. He advises against it, though not in the way a baptist today would. It's more akin to how a progressive-conservative Mennonite would advise against drinking alcohol.

Though his writing addressing it was written in the early 200s, infant baptism doesn't seem to be a new thing that needs to be strongly addressed as a heretical departure from the norm. The way he addresses it suggests that many families have been doing it due to the cultural assumptions of the day.

In Roman society, the father defined the household for his wife, children, and even others like household servants/slaves.
At this time, Christianity was much more of a "Way of life" than it was "saying the sinner's prayer and going about your day". For the Roman household, the father (patriarch) defined the way of life for the whole household. You see societies like this in the undeveloped nations of the world. Christian missionaries will convert the Chief of a tribe, and the whole tribe converts because everyone follows the chief. This is what a Roman household was like. If the father was converted to a new way of life (like The Way), it was seen as his duty to steer his "ship" along that way, including all the individual members of his household.

With this in mind, it's easy to see why baptism was administered to households in many cases, whereas today in baptist and anabaptist circles, it's administered only to individuals. This trend no doubt became the total standard in the time of Constantine and the following Roman Emperors who claimed to be Christians. Because at that point, everyone who is a "Roman" and whose family is certainly "Roman" wants to be "Christian". It seems that before Constantine, sometime before AD 200, baptism was administered to individuals and sometimes to households (including infants). This no doubt differed with time and from place to place. If it was incredibly controversial to baptize infants, maybe one or two bishops took a stand and refused to do it and also taught against it. However, we have no record of anyone teaching against it or of any sort of controversy. The closest thing we have is Tertullian sharing a negative opinion about it around the turn of the 3rd century.

[JohnL]

I am not aware of infant baptism being practiced for sure before the early 200's.

Tertullian mentions infant baptism in a writing dated ~200-206. He advises against it, though not in the way a baptist today would. It's more akin to how a progressive-conservative Mennonite would advise against drinking alcohol.

Though his writing addressing it was written in the early 200s, infant baptism doesn't seem to be a new thing that needs to be strongly addressed as a heretical departure from the norm. The way he addresses it suggests that many families have been doing it due to the cultural assumptions of the day.

In Roman society, the father defined the household for his wife, children, and even others like household servants/slaves.
At this time, Christianity was much more of a "Way of life" than it was "saying the sinner's prayer and going about your day". For the Roman household, the father (patriarch) defined the way of life for the whole household. You see societies like this in the undeveloped nations of the world. Christian missionaries will convert the Chief of a tribe, and the whole tribe converts because everyone follows the chief. This is what a Roman household was like. If the father was converted to a new way of life (like The Way), it was seen as his duty to steer his "ship" along that way, including all the individual members of his household.

With this in mind, it's easy to see why baptism was administered to households in many cases, whereas today in baptist and anabaptist circles, it's administered only to individuals. This trend no doubt became the total standard in the time of Constantine and the following Roman Emperors who claimed to be Christians. Because at that point, everyone who is a "Roman" and whose family is certainly "Roman" wants to be "Christian". It seems that before Constantine, sometime before AD 200, baptism was administered to individuals and sometimes to households (including infants). This no doubt differed with time and from place to place. If it was incredibly controversial to baptize infants, maybe one or two bishops took a stand and refused to do it and also taught against it. However, we have no record of anyone teaching against it or of any sort of controversy. The closest thing we have is Tertullian sharing a negative opinion about it around the turn of the 3rd century.

This insight into Roman households and tribal chiefs is really interesting. It makes a great deal of sense.

[Thomas_muntzer]

A thread to discuss writings and pictures from the early centuries AD.
This can include scripture, books that did not make it into the canon, ante-Nicene writings written by Christians, and other writings not written by Christians.

In my opinion, most books written during this period are worth reading, especially those written by the Church Fathers. When I understood everything that had to happen for a book over 1,000 years old to survive to our time, I came to the conclusion that it could only be God's will. It's a miracle that a book has survived this long.

[Ernie]

I am not aware of infant baptism being practiced for sure before the early 200's.

Tertullian mentions infant baptism in a writing dated ~200-206. He advises against it, though not in the way a baptist today would. It's more akin to how a progressive-conservative Mennonite would advise against drinking alcohol.

Though his writing addressing it was written in the early 200s, infant baptism doesn't seem to be a new thing that needs to be strongly addressed as a heretical departure from the norm. The way he addresses it suggests that many families have been doing it due to the cultural assumptions of the day.

In Roman society, the father defined the household for his wife, children, and even others like household servants/slaves.
At this time, Christianity was much more of a "Way of life" than it was "saying the sinner's prayer and going about your day". For the Roman household, the father (patriarch) defined the way of life for the whole household. You see societies like this in the undeveloped nations of the world. Christian missionaries will convert the Chief of a tribe, and the whole tribe converts because everyone follows the chief. This is what a Roman household was like. If the father was converted to a new way of life (like The Way), it was seen as his duty to steer his "ship" along that way, including all the individual members of his household.

With this in mind, it's easy to see why baptism was administered to households in many cases, whereas today in baptist and anabaptist circles, it's administered only to individuals. This trend no doubt became the total standard in the time of Constantine and the following Roman Emperors who claimed to be Christians. Because at that point, everyone who is a "Roman" and whose family is certainly "Roman" wants to be "Christian". It seems that before Constantine, sometime before AD 200, baptism was administered to individuals and sometimes to households (including infants). This no doubt differed with time and from place to place. If it was incredibly controversial to baptize infants, maybe one or two bishops took a stand and refused to do it and also taught against it. However, we have no record of anyone teaching against it or of any sort of controversy. The closest thing we have is Tertullian sharing a negative opinion about it around the turn of the 3rd century.

Yes, I understand these arguments in favor of infant baptism.

The points I am making are...
1. We don't know that infant baptism was practiced before 200 AD.
2. We don't know how common it was between 200 AD and 300 AD.

[Bootstrap]

I am not aware of infant baptism being practiced for sure before the early 200's.

Tertullian mentions infant baptism in a writing dated ~200-206. He advises against it, though not in the way a baptist today would. It's more akin to how a progressive-conservative Mennonite would advise against drinking alcohol.

Though his writing addressing it was written in the early 200s, infant baptism doesn't seem to be a new thing that needs to be strongly addressed as a heretical departure from the norm. The way he addresses it suggests that many families have been doing it due to the cultural assumptions of the day.

!!! SNIP !!!

Yes, I understand these arguments in favor of infant baptism.

I don't think I know P&T's position for or against infant baptism. I am really uncomfortable with infant baptism, but appreciated P&D's post, which takes these writings seriously.

The points I am making are...
1. We don't know that infant baptism was practiced before 200 AD.
2. We don't know how common it was between 200 AD and 300 AD.

I think we do know that Tertullian believed infant baptism was being practiced when he wrote On Baptism, which was around 198–206 AD. He doesn't seem to describe it as a novelty or new heresy, but he does say it is is unwise. That suggests it was already practiced enough to be worth mentioning and discouraging.

1. Didache (c. 70–120 AD) – Syria

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

That seems to assume adults.

2. Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) – Rome - First Apology 61

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true... are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For in the name of God... they then receive the washing with water.

This also assumes the baptized person is someone who can hear instruction, be persuaded, and believe. Again, not infants.

3. Tertullian (c. 198–206 AD) – North Africa - On Baptism 18

Therefore, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children... Let them come when they are grown up; let them be made Christians when they have become able to know Christ.

This is the earliest direct reference to infant baptism, and Tertullian is clearly writing because it's being done — not introducing a theoretical concern. His argument is not that it's invalid, but that it's better to wait. So it must have been a real practice at that time, likely not rare, even if not yet universal.

4. Hippolytus (c. 215 AD) – Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21

First baptize the children. If they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or another who belongs to their family speak for them.

Here we have a direct, practical instruction to baptize infants (those who can't speak) as well as older children. This is around 215 AD, and shows that infant baptism was part of normal liturgical practice in at least some churches by this time.

I don't think we have enough sources to be really sure. Here's how I interpret the evidence we do have:

1. The earliest references assume mature candidates (Didache, Justin),
2. Infant baptism was happening by ~200 AD (Tertullian),
3. In at least some places, infant baptism was part of formal church practice by ~215 AD (Hippolytus).
4. References to infant baptism increase after that time.

I consider the New Testament authoritative on this question, and the early Fathers illustrative - they teach us the diverse ways that the New Testament teaching was understood and applied at different times and places. To me, the New Testament clearly does require understanding and repentance and I do not see that as compatible with infant baptism.

But if I used the teachings of the early church the way some people do, I would have to accept infant baptism. What does that tell us about the right ways to read and benefit from these writings?

[Bootstrap]

Here's one thing we can learn from these writings - churches can drift quite a bit in just a few hundred years, and there was a significant amount of diversity in the early church.

You can see similar things in early Anabaptist writings, FWIW.