Reading and benefitting from media from the first centuries AD

[JohnH]

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.

This is my position as well, and why I shy away from early-churchism.

[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.

This is my position as well, and why I shy away from early-churchism.

When I first started learning Hebrew and Greek, I thought that would answer all my questions and tell me which translations were right. And I learned that in any language, some sentences can be understood more than one way. We can all read simple English sentences and legitimately interpret them differently based on our understanding of the context, the history, etc. Greek and Hebrew are no different. And any translation requires interpretation.

When I first started looking at the early church, J.C. Wenger was my inspiration, his writings seemed to assure me that they interpreted scripture the way I wanted to. But the more I actually read these sources, the less convinced I became that they answered all of our questions. To read them well, you really do need to read the complete work to understand their motives and reasoning. Tables that tell you when and where they wrote are helpful. When I talk to patristic scholars, most of them seem to agree that there was significant diversity and teasing out who thought what and why is a lot of work, best done with help from Quasten or Ferguson or others. And usually, the evidence for any one position comes from few quotes, often enigmatic.

Even if we look at just one short book, say the Didache, we may like what it says about baptism, but not what it says about fasting on Wednesday and Fridays,

I get the desire for these early writings to settle all of my questions, but they just don't. For the most part, investing the same time in the Bible seems a better use of my time.

[JayP]

I am amazed at how folks look at studying this time period and writings. For they still find what they wish, and manage to talk away what they did not like. I guess human nature does not change. I appreciate the attention someone gave that even in the NT we have evidence of, let’s call it some straying by churches. Look, if the NT writers saw things that needed correction why assume all practices or ideas suggested in early writings are any more likely to be 100 pct “pure”.

For example, and I am not pushing its truthfulness or untruthfulness, the observance of Assumption of Mary goes back to very early church times. For myself, I think many topics interesting and discussions of them capable of teaching us independently of our certainty. An over fixation on this topic or that can often move our focus away from what we DO KNOW and are obligated to do.
Losing out on loving my neighbor while figuring out did the early church do it this way or that way seems a terrible mistake.

[Soloist]

I am amazed at how folks look at studying this time period and writings. For they still find what they wish, and manage to talk away what they did not like. I guess human nature does not change. I appreciate the attention someone gave that even in the NT we have evidence of, let’s call it some straying by churches. Look, if the NT writers saw things that needed correction why assume all practices or ideas suggested in early writings are any more likely to be 100 pct “pure”.

For example, and I am not pushing its truthfulness or untruthfulness, the observance of Assumption of Mary goes back to very early church times. For myself, I think many topics interesting and discussions of them capable of teaching us independently of our certainty. An over fixation on this topic or that can often move our focus away from what we DO KNOW and are obligated to do.
Losing out on loving my neighbor while figuring out did the early church do it this way or that way seems a terrible mistake.

You see what you want to see.

[Ernie]

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?

How is what you are saying different from what I am saying, or are you not trying to contrast?

[Bootstrap]

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.

How is what you are saying different from what I am saying, or are you not trying to contrast?

If Tertullian was writing about infant baptism around 198–206 AD, and not treating it as something new or unusual, and infant baptism was part of formal church practice by ~215 AD (Hippolytus), then I think it very likely that infant baptism was being practiced before 200 AD. We don't know that for sure, but it seems likely.

And "we don't know" about a lot of things here. There just isn't a detailed record of what the church practiced where and when.

[Bootstrap]

For example, and I am not pushing its truthfulness or untruthfulness, the observance of Assumption of Mary goes back to very early church times.

Can you share your sources?

I can't find anything about Mary's Dormition (death) or Assumption (bodily glorification) before the Council of Ephesus (431). Early Dormition legends like like Transitus Mariae (4th c.) said Mary died, but her body did not decay, and was assumed into heaven. The liturgy for August 15th came much later than that.

[Bootstrap]

For myself, I think many topics interesting and discussions of them capable of teaching us independently of our certainty. An over fixation on this topic or that can often move our focus away from what we DO KNOW and are obligated to do.
Losing out on loving my neighbor while figuring out did the early church do it this way or that way seems a terrible mistake.

I agree 100%.

[Ernie]

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.

How is what you are saying different from what I am saying, or are you not trying to contrast?

If Tertullian was writing about infant baptism around 198–206 AD, and not treating it as something new or unusual, and infant baptism was part of formal church practice by ~215 AD (Hippolytus), then I think it very likely that infant baptism was being practiced before 200 AD. We don't know that for sure, but it seems likely.

And "we don't know" about a lot of things here. There just isn't a detailed record of what the church practiced where and when.

I agree that we don't know. That is my point.
I get weary of people making all sorts of statements about what was happening in the early church, without a single citation to verify their point, or without any indication that it was more than a localized practice. All such conclusions are speculation or conjecture.

[Bootstrap]

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.

How is what you are saying different from what I am saying, or are you not trying to contrast?

If Tertullian was writing about infant baptism around 198–206 AD, and not treating it as something new or unusual, and infant baptism was part of formal church practice by ~215 AD (Hippolytus), then I think it very likely that infant baptism was being practiced before 200 AD. We don't know that for sure, but it seems likely.

And "we don't know" about a lot of things here. There just isn't a detailed record of what the church practiced where and when.

I agree that we don't know. That is my point.
I get weary of people making all sorts of statements about what was happening in the early church, without a single citation to verify their point, or without any indication that it was more than a localized practice. All such conclusions are speculation or conjecture.

I agree. I would say we don't know that infant baptism was practiced before 200 A.D., but it seems likely that it was based on what Tertullian wrote.

I appreciate what you say about "all sorts of statements about what was happening in the early church". In general, the things that the early church was one on are found in the New Testament and continue on. The things that matter most to the Kingdom of God are not hidden away in the writings of the early church or in "the original Greek".