Tuesday Scholarly Notes
10/15/24
Aland, Kurt. (1961). "Chapter Two: The First clear Testimonies for the Practice of Infant Baptism in the Third Century." Did the Early Church Baptize Infants? (Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray). (pages 42-52). Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock. (Personal Library)
Aland observes the distinction between baptism of children in a household which converts to Christianity and baptism of children born to those who are already Christians. In Aland's view this is an important distinction (Aland 1961, p. 42). As time went on, he expects the amount of catechetical instruction to have increased. Aland's survey of the Didache reveals no clear timeline for pre-baptismal instruction, though chapters 1-6 provide some detail of the content (Aland 1961, p. 43). Chapter 12 discusses reception of guests in good faith, but also indicates some sort of evaluation when a visitor remains in the community. By the time of Justin's Apologia (I.61) there is an expectation of a probationary period prior to baptism. By the early 3rd century Hippolytus' Church Order (42.1), the probationary period was three years. For this reason Aland takes entry into the Church to be recognized prior to more extensive catechesis, but full recognition to be delayed until after catechesis and baptism (Aland 1961, p. 44). If this is the case with children of Christians, everyone is treated the same. Aland interprets Jeremias as taking this point of view.
By taking the point of view of Jeremias, that essentially all baptisms were "missionary baptisms," Aland considers there to be inadequate evidence of actual practice (Aland 1961, p. 45). Jeremias takes Easter to be the normal date of baptism except in the case of a need for baptism on a deathbed. The practice thus becomes more confused. Aland further notes that the real debate involves not all children, but specifically infants, as those who cannot purposely receive systematic catechesis (Aland 1961, p. 47).
Origen's testimony, from Palestine between 231 and 250, suggests a prevailing belief that since infants have not sinned, they do not need baptism. Origen's argument is that even newborns bear the guilt of sin, therefore they need baptism. Aland considers that Origen would not have argued in the way he did if the consistent view from the time of the apostles had been in favor of baptizing infants (Aland 1961, p. 47). Yet Aland also finds Jeremias' view that Origen clearly assumed infant baptism as the norm not to flow by necessity from Origen's argument (Aland 1961, p. 48). The strength of the opposition in Origen's arguments calls for questioning the universal acceptance of infant baptism in Palestine at his time.
Aland notes some specificity in the so-called Church Order of Hippolytus. Children are to be baptized. Those who cannot speak for themselves should be spoken for by a family member (Aland 1961, p. 49). However, Aland is not certain this church order actually dates to the early third century, and the Greek text is largely lost. Jeremias takes the work to come from Hippolytus and to hearken back to practice of earlier generations. Aland finds this view not necessarily warranted. Aland observes that "a Church Order has the intention of finally establishing the church situation of its time, or the perceptions and demands of its author, by means of an appeal (which is always made) back to the Apostolic age, and thus of securing for itself an anchorage for all the time - until a new Church Order comes along and sets the old one aside and tries to establish something which befits the new time" (Aland 1961, p. 50, emphasis Aland's). The nature of a Church Order is to issue future guidance. This new guidance regularly makes a claim to ancient authority (Aland 1961, p. 51). Aland finds it unclear that the Church Order of Hippolytus refers plainly to the "missionary baptism" model articulated by Jeremias. Children are the first to be baptized in this model. The adults answer for the children. This does not necessarily make sense in the context of parents answering on behalf of their children, when the parents have not yet been baptized (Aland 1961, pp. 51-52). Aland concludes that the children referenced are those of parents who are already Christians.
10/15/24
Aland, Kurt. (1961). "Chapter Two: The First clear Testimonies for the Practice of Infant Baptism in the Third Century." Did the Early Church Baptize Infants? (Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray). (pages 42-52). Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock. (Personal Library)
Aland observes the distinction between baptism of children in a household which converts to Christianity and baptism of children born to those who are already Christians. In Aland's view this is an important distinction (Aland 1961, p. 42). As time went on, he expects the amount of catechetical instruction to have increased. Aland's survey of the Didache reveals no clear timeline for pre-baptismal instruction, though chapters 1-6 provide some detail of the content (Aland 1961, p. 43). Chapter 12 discusses reception of guests in good faith, but also indicates some sort of evaluation when a visitor remains in the community. By the time of Justin's Apologia (I.61) there is an expectation of a probationary period prior to baptism. By the early 3rd century Hippolytus' Church Order (42.1), the probationary period was three years. For this reason Aland takes entry into the Church to be recognized prior to more extensive catechesis, but full recognition to be delayed until after catechesis and baptism (Aland 1961, p. 44). If this is the case with children of Christians, everyone is treated the same. Aland interprets Jeremias as taking this point of view.
By taking the point of view of Jeremias, that essentially all baptisms were "missionary baptisms," Aland considers there to be inadequate evidence of actual practice (Aland 1961, p. 45). Jeremias takes Easter to be the normal date of baptism except in the case of a need for baptism on a deathbed. The practice thus becomes more confused. Aland further notes that the real debate involves not all children, but specifically infants, as those who cannot purposely receive systematic catechesis (Aland 1961, p. 47).
Origen's testimony, from Palestine between 231 and 250, suggests a prevailing belief that since infants have not sinned, they do not need baptism. Origen's argument is that even newborns bear the guilt of sin, therefore they need baptism. Aland considers that Origen would not have argued in the way he did if the consistent view from the time of the apostles had been in favor of baptizing infants (Aland 1961, p. 47). Yet Aland also finds Jeremias' view that Origen clearly assumed infant baptism as the norm not to flow by necessity from Origen's argument (Aland 1961, p. 48). The strength of the opposition in Origen's arguments calls for questioning the universal acceptance of infant baptism in Palestine at his time.
Aland notes some specificity in the so-called Church Order of Hippolytus. Children are to be baptized. Those who cannot speak for themselves should be spoken for by a family member (Aland 1961, p. 49). However, Aland is not certain this church order actually dates to the early third century, and the Greek text is largely lost. Jeremias takes the work to come from Hippolytus and to hearken back to practice of earlier generations. Aland finds this view not necessarily warranted. Aland observes that "a Church Order has the intention of finally establishing the church situation of its time, or the perceptions and demands of its author, by means of an appeal (which is always made) back to the Apostolic age, and thus of securing for itself an anchorage for all the time - until a new Church Order comes along and sets the old one aside and tries to establish something which befits the new time" (Aland 1961, p. 50, emphasis Aland's). The nature of a Church Order is to issue future guidance. This new guidance regularly makes a claim to ancient authority (Aland 1961, p. 51). Aland finds it unclear that the Church Order of Hippolytus refers plainly to the "missionary baptism" model articulated by Jeremias. Children are the first to be baptized in this model. The adults answer for the children. This does not necessarily make sense in the context of parents answering on behalf of their children, when the parents have not yet been baptized (Aland 1961, pp. 51-52). Aland concludes that the children referenced are those of parents who are already Christians.
RSS Feed