Talk:Baptism

Time to trim quotes and more?

Now that it is back, I looked at the article again. Why are there so many huge box-quotes? To me that is an "invitation not to read" anything. I do not want to edit this article, but I would suggest at least a 30% trim for all the text. This is just too heavy and hard to read. History2007 (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I am not going to watch this page any more, so good luck with the fixes. History2007 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The article could be trimmed considerably by moving extended discussion of various sectarian views to their relevant pages. I have made a start on this, moving the Baptist view on baptism to the page on Baptist beliefs.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Baptism/Comments

Talk:Baptism/Comments should be (re)moved at this point; could this be added the correct talk page archive for the time-frame of the comments? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Largescale reference deletion

I don't pay much attention to this page, or subject, but it's on my watchlist, and I note the following [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptism&curid=4298&diff=436206233&oldid=436199112 deletion of sentence largescale deletion of references]. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you put so much value on these references, I have put them back in, but only in relation to the statement that "(certain) standard Bible dictionaries define as affusion standing in water having water poured over the head", which they do support, and without the curious statement, which they do not support, that "for New Testament usage it (the Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott) gives two meanings ... but never as standing in water having water poured over the head". Do you still think the statement about how some Bible dictionaries describe (rather than define) "standing in water having water poured over the head" is relevant under the heading of the meaning of the Greek verb βαπτίζειν? Surely not. And so, may this statement be removed again? Esoglou (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou,

Your separation of the sentence and refs to Standard Bible dictionaries define as affusion standing in water having water poured over the head.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48] does indeed look irrelevant and ripe for removal.

But the original wording didn't:

.. "baptize", with which it associates the Septuagint mention of Naaman dipping himself in the Jordan River, and "perform ablutions", as in Luke 11:38,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] but never as standing in water having water poured over the head, which standard Bible dictionaries define as affusion.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48]"

This makes perfect sense and is relevant, why should it and the refs be deleted?

In ictu oculi (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Did it really make even imperfect sense to say that Liddell and Scott never associated βαπτίζω with "standing in water having water poured over the head"? What is the relevance to the meaning of the Greek verb of the silence of Liddell and Scott on this particular form of baptism? Liddell and Scott never associated the Greek verb with having water poured on the head without standing in water, with a bathtub, with a river or lake or the sea, with a Trinitarian or other formula to be recited, with an action by clergy or laity, a man or a woman, or with any of the thousands of other matters that you yourself can think of. Should Liddell and Scott's silence on these matters be mentioned too? And what do the precious references (which do classify baptism by affusion as baptism) say about this (or any other) silence of Liddell and Scott? Do they suggest that this particular silence is in some way significant, or that it is somehow more significant than Liddell and Scott's other silences? Esoglou (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The deletion seemed to have good references but seemed to consist of "your way is invalid" as the main sentence. I agreed with the removal of that theme. I hope we can discuss affusion with less polemics than that! But it almost seemed that a half-way decent subtopic could be made of the footnotes which went out the window with the statement. "Affusion" has but a tiny summary here.

For example, yes, ancient pictures mostly display affusion. (On the other hand a bit hard to depict immersion/submersion in a dignified manner! So that may come down to "artistic license." But it is true, nonetheless).

Also, the Greek root was changed from a noun (in one sentence) to a verb. My Greek is a little rusty, so I won't argue. But this seems to change the meaning of the subsection and maybe the article. We need general consensus there I would think. Student7 (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

We agree, I think, that these references have no relevance to what the Liddell and Scott lexicon says about the meaning of the Greek verb baptizein, which is what the section is about. They concern instead use of the term "affusion" for the mode of baptism in early Christian depictions, a mode for which other reliable sources prefer to use the term "immersion". There is no danger whatever that they will be lost. They did not "go out of the window". Every one of them is given in the article Immersion baptism, where they are relevant. Indeed, in that article, all but one of them (Freedman) are given not just once but repeatedly.

From the Greek verb baptizein comes the English verb "baptize". The English noun "baptism" comes, as the opening words of the article state, from the Greek noun baptisma, itself derived from the Greek noun baptismos. The spelling of the two English words, the verb and the noun, surely hints at this fact, which you can check in any etymological English dictionary. There is no lack of consensus on it – unless perhaps you dispute it. I don't see how correcting the previous mistaken wording can be thought in any way to "change the meaning of the subsection or of the article": the subsection is about the meaning of the Greek verb baptizein; the article as a whole is about baptism, the thing (noun) that is done by the action (verb) of baptizing. Esoglou (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Esoglou, I don't really understand "there is no danger that they will be lost" when you have deleted them, isn't deleting them "lost"? And as for the introductory sentence, it doesn't seem unreasonable or trivial to note that the Greek verb baptizein doesn't cover a main use of the English verb "baptize" but, well, finetuning the sentence introducing the refs is something someone else probably can bother with. I just noted a large ref deletion, and it doesn't sound like deleting the refs is the only option here.In ictu oculi (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

By "they are not lost", I mean that, though they are no longer in a place where they had no relevance whatever, they are all - and in nearly every case several times over - where Wikipedia discusses the question they do deal with.

What is the main use of the English verb "baptize" that baptizein does not cover? Whatever it is, I suppose it could and should be mentioned, with citations that state that the use in question is not covered by the Greek verb baptizein (unlike the citations removed from here, which use the English word "affusion" for one particular mode of baptism, but say nothing either positive or negative about the relation of that mode to the Greek verb baptizein). It might be difficult to insert it into this section, which speaks only of what is in Liddell and Scott, and Liddell and Scott says nothing about any main use of the English verb "baptize" that baptizein does not cover; but perhaps it could be done You do know, of course, that the Didache, written in Greek and using the verb baptizein ("baptize thus ..."), indicates several modes, including pouring water three times on the head.

There was a statement (now removed) that Liddell and Scott did not mention (either positively or negatively) a particular mode of baptism in relation to the Greek verb baptizein. The discussion here shows that some readers mistakenly took this statement to mean that the Greek verb baptizein did not apply to that mode of baptism. Neither Liddell and Scott nor the citations in question said that the verb baptizein did not apply to that mode. The misunderstanding of that irrelevant statement shows how necessary it was to remove it. Jumping to that non-sequitur conclusion was, as I already indicated, no more logical than, for example, arguing that, because Liddell and Scott did not mention (positively or negatively) pronouncing the formula "I baptize you in the name of the Father...", Liddell and Scott was declaring that the Greek verb baptizein did not cover baptism with the Trinitarian formula.

What was removed from here was a statement that was irrelevant here, but that remains in Wikipedia where it is relevant. What was the other option for dealing with an irrelevancy? Esoglou (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

FSM

A few editors wanted to add a section on baptism in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. First of all, that is a significant addition that has already been disputed here, so please discuss this first and don't edit war. Secondly, the hatnote and lead clearly indicate that this article is about Baptism in Christianity, and I don't think anyone seriously suggests Pastafarianism is Christian. Thirdly, the reference used was dubious - we would need a citation from a reliable secondary source. StAnselm (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)