26-03-2016, 11:04 AM
(This post was last modified: 26-03-2016, 11:13 AM by Diane.
Edit Reason: expansion
)
The idea of this as a Christian baptism of the type practiced in medieval and Renaissance Europe is just an idea.
To be more, it would need to find support in the historical record and in the record of relevant imagery, I should think. According to an Anabaptist site adult baptism didn't begin in Europe before the sixteenth century.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Records of forced baptism of adults (e.g. of Jews) tell us that the ceremony was always performed by a person licensed by canon law to do this, was performed in the normal way (i.e. only the head was baptised; nakedness not required) and used water blessed by a priest or higher member of the hierarchy. In theory anyone could baptise; in practice laymen only did so when an infant was in extremis.
Images of Christ being baptised by John represent a particular item in Christian art, and it was not applied generically to suggest baptism per se.
If the picture were being argued a sixteenth century Anabaptist image, we'd need some codicological or other solid evidence to date the manuscript so late - if it were to be thought first enunciated in Latin Europe.
Then we'd need some details from the historical data about whether or not Anabaptists were in the habit of baptising groups of women naked, and of allowing another woman in that state to perform the ceremony.
Otherwise, if it isn't sixteenth century, it isn't a European Christian adult baptism, I suppose.
My own view is that the 'ladies' in this section are intended in the same sense that they are in the calendar, but that's by the way.
To be more, it would need to find support in the historical record and in the record of relevant imagery, I should think. According to an Anabaptist site adult baptism didn't begin in Europe before the sixteenth century.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Records of forced baptism of adults (e.g. of Jews) tell us that the ceremony was always performed by a person licensed by canon law to do this, was performed in the normal way (i.e. only the head was baptised; nakedness not required) and used water blessed by a priest or higher member of the hierarchy. In theory anyone could baptise; in practice laymen only did so when an infant was in extremis.
Images of Christ being baptised by John represent a particular item in Christian art, and it was not applied generically to suggest baptism per se.
If the picture were being argued a sixteenth century Anabaptist image, we'd need some codicological or other solid evidence to date the manuscript so late - if it were to be thought first enunciated in Latin Europe.
Then we'd need some details from the historical data about whether or not Anabaptists were in the habit of baptising groups of women naked, and of allowing another woman in that state to perform the ceremony.
Otherwise, if it isn't sixteenth century, it isn't a European Christian adult baptism, I suppose.
My own view is that the 'ladies' in this section are intended in the same sense that they are in the calendar, but that's by the way.