MetaCatholic

(This post is part of a series on the 39 articles of the Church of England)

The two articles about scripture are followed by a short one on the creeds.

VIII. Of the Three Creeds
The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.

This article contains, strictly speaking, two misnomers. The Nicene Creed is in fact the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, being the Council of Constantinople’s revision (381 AD) of the creed of Nicaea (325 AD). And the so-called Athanasian Creed, or Quicunque vult, is not really a creed at all, though it deals with fundamental credal material.

In choosing these three statements of faith, the article looks back to a relatively primitive rule of faith (the Apostles’ Creed is probably based on the old Roman baptismal creed of the early third century), to the major formulation of the church’s Trinitarian faith in the face of the Arian controversy in the fourth century (the Nicene Creed), and to a major Western statement that reflects the fifth century Chalcedonian definition on the incarnation (the Athanasian Creed). The Anglican Reformers place themselves fairly firmly in the tradition of what some have liked to call the Undivided Church (a statement of doctrine rather than simple history). In fact, both the Apostle’s Creed and the Athanasian Creed are fundamentally Western, and Anglicanism like the rest of the churches of the Reformation, belongs in the western (and often Augustinian) Christian tradition.

The articles are unusual among the Reformation statements in saying something specific about the creeds, and mandating their use. The Apostles’ Creed was to be used daily (twice a day) in the Daily Office, and the Nicene Creed at every Eucharist. The rootedness of Anglicanism not only in the Scriptures, but also in the fundamental credal tradition of the Church cannot be avoided by anyone who pays attention to its classical liturgy.

There is, in these first eight articles a certain circularity. The overt and clear statement is that Scripture is sufficient and the basis of doctrine. Indeed, the creeds are to be accepted because they can be proved to fit the scriptural pattern. The tradition hangs on scripture. Yet the implicit statement in the ordering of the articles is that the Church’s traditional Trinitarian doctrine is the rule of faith and framework of belief through which the Scriptures are to be approached, and the Creeds act as an authoritative statement of what the Church has read in Scripture. Without this tradition, one will not read Scripture rightly, and if one reads Scripture in a way that departs from the traditional creeds, one has read Scripture wrongly.

While the articles will go on to more mixed use – both affirmation and denial – of varying traditions, these first eight, while formally according Scripture the place of primacy, actually insist on a sort of symbiosis of Scripture and Tradition. Tradition becomes the work of, and guide to, reading Scripture rightly. Scripture stands as the guardian and judge of the Tradition’s readings. The articles’ position may be suprema Scriptura, but it isn’t, by any means, sola Scriptura.

Suzanne McCarthy posted an interesting reflection on the procedures of translation committees using 1 Cor 12:13 as an example given by Gordon Fee. There was some debate in the TNIV translation committee, where Fee

had argued to have “baptized by one Spirit” changed to “baptized in one Spirit”. He pointed out that the Greek baptizo also means simply “immersed” or “soaked in”. [In fact, in one case in Josephus' Antiquities it refers to being drunk - immersed in wine to the extent that they become insensible and fell asleep. So, baptizo has a wide range of meaning.]

In the end, the committee went instead for

For we were all baptized by* one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
    *footnoted Or with; or in

While Suzanne has some grosser examples of committees over-ruling specialists in favour of a familiar idea or traditional translation, I’ve debated with her in the comments on that post that this example is more genuinely open to being translated either way without theological prejudice. There’s a serious question about how one takes the double prepositions ἐν and  εἰς .

καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν

It’s possible to read the first as instrumental “by” and the second as “into”: one is baptized into one body; equally the alternative is possible,  ”in water … to become one body.”

Suzanne, in her most recent response, has taken the argument one step further (while not disagreeing with the legitimacy of different English prepositions):

I think it is a matter of opinion, but, of course, the basic meaning of baptizo is to “sink, soak, be immersed in”, etc. It is probably this collocation that suggests “in”. However, in English, we don’t always think of “being immersed in” as the basic meaning. In fact, I don’t think it has any other meaning in Greek.

It is this I have just a hint of a question about, which is why I’m writing a post of my own, rather than leaving another comment on Suzanne’s post. Is βαπτίζω in the process of becoming a technical term even within the pages of the NT, so that immersing, the original means of baptism as well as the meaning of the verb, is on its way to become a connotation of a word which denotes initiation?

I note first the main other Pauline uses, in English (NRSV) but with the Greek prepositions highlighted.

• Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into (εἰς) Christ Jesus were baptized into (εἰς) his death? (Rom 6:3)
• Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in (εἰς) the name of Paul? (1 Cor 1:13)
• all were baptized into (εἰς) Moses in (ἐν) the cloud and in (ἐν) the sea (1 Cor 10:2)
• As many of you as were baptized into (εἰς) Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Gal 3:27)

While the idea of immersing is still clearly part of the word’s meaning, it also seems to be somewhere on the way to becoming at least a metaphor, if not a technical term: what one is baptized into (εἰς) is not a substance in which one can be immersed. What we can’t know, and what we would need to know to establish how much this is happening, is whether the mode of baptism invariably included immersion at this time. One possible instance of an early baptism without immersion comes in Luke’s account of Paul’s own baptism (which must be used with caution):

So Ananias went and entered the house. He laid his hands on Saul and said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”  And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and his sight was restored. Then he got up and was baptized,  and after taking some food, he regained his strength. (Acts 9:17-19 NRSV)

There are at least three options: they left the house and went to the baths or a river, the house had a mikveh, or Ananias used a bowl and jug of water in Paul’s bedroom. The last two are perhaps more likely on the face of the text.

Another possible instance is the account of the Philippian gaoler, which again, needs to be treated with due caution as historical evidence:

They spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. At the same hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptized without delay. (Acts 16:32-33 NRSV)

The implication of the account is that this is water which is located somewhere in the house, and that therefore immersion is an unlikely method. So we may (and only may) have two possible instances where the text could hint at a mode of baptism other than immersion. The other instances in Acts are either completely bare of any reference to mode (but probably presume immersion), or else clearly imply immersion. If that is so, it is still possible that later practices emerging in Luke’s day have influenced his story-telling.

Moving outside the pages of the NT we have the evidence of the Didache, which may well be earlier than Acts – its date remains disputed from the mid-first to early second century.

Περὶ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος οὕτω βαπτίσατε ταῦτα πάντα προειπόντες βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς ὕδωρ ζῶν εἰς ἄλλο ὕδωρ βάπτισον εἰ δ᾽ οὐ δύνασαι ἐν ψυχρῷ ἐν θερμῷ ἐὰν δὲ ἀμφότερα μὴ ἔχῃς ἔκχεον εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν τρὶς ὕδωρ εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος  (7:1-3)

Now, about baptism, once they have been instructed, baptize them in this way. Baptize [=immerse] them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit with [=in] running [= living] water. If you don’t have running water, baptize [=immerse] them with [=in] other water. If you can’t use cold water, use hot. If you can’t immerse them [= do any of these] at all pour water on their head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (more literal phrases added in parentheses)

Should that word ἐν be translated with, or in? Either is possible, and if it were not for that “in[to] the name …” then “in” would certainly be the more natural translation. What this shows, I think, at least for this group of probably Syrian Christians, is that while “baptize” continues to mean immerse, it is also still baptism when immersion is not possible. Is that a new development, or does it stretch back into the earlier history of Christian communities?

The range of metaphors for what one is baptized into – Christ, Christ’s death, Paul’s name [i.e. instead of Jesus' name], Moses, and finally, the name of the Trinity, does suggest that more emphasis was being placed on what one was being initiated into, than the means of initiation. So, I think, it is not unreasonable to suggest that here we are seeing the early stages of a word that is itself being baptized with a new meaning. This leaves me agreeing strongly with Suzanne that “maintaining the use of transliteration for baptizo is eirenic.” It holds the possibilities open.