Origen and Infant Baptism

[fineca]

Hi,
Origen is often quoted in support of Infant Baptism. However, there is (I read this on a Pentecostal website) the argument that the original Greek of Origen doesn’t exist any more, we only have the Latin copy, and the translators of that Latin text later admitted they added some things to Origen’s text.
Has anyone heard this argument against Origen supporting Infant Baptism? Do you know how reliable it is, can it be disproven?
Thanks! E

 

[MariaG]

Hi,
Origen is often quoted in support of Infant Baptism. However, there is (I read this on a Pentecostal website) the argument that the original Greek of Origen doesn’t exist any more, we only have the Latin copy, and the translators of that Latin text later admitted they added some things to Origen’s text.
Has anyone heard this argument against Origen supporting Infant Baptism? Do you know how reliable it is, can it be disproven?
Thanks! E

No. I do not know how reliable this is.

But I do know that there are more ECF besides Origen who are quoted.

Here is the tract from CA Library that quotes them.

Early Teachings on Infant Baptism

But I would email or post a question on the site asking them for some links to the historical accuracy of this claim as you are Catholic and you would like to research this yourself.

A nice way of telling them that the “proof” of this claim should be provided by the one making such a claim.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Hi,
Origen is often quoted in support of Infant Baptism. However, there is (I read this on a Pentecostal website) the argument that the original Greek of Origen doesn’t exist any more, we only have the Latin copy, and the translators of that Latin text later admitted they added some things to Origen’s text.
Has anyone heard this argument against Origen supporting Infant Baptism? Do you know how reliable it is, can it be disproven?
Thanks! E

Ask them if they spoke directly with the translators or heard it second-hand?

 

[Channy]

I was pentecostal for awhile. I must admit one of the things that pushed me into the Old Catholic Church was the rampant inaccuracy of many historical claims that protestant, not only pentacostals, have made. I heard many things from “Spirit Filled” preachers that later turned out to be untrue. One of the ways I deal with things of this nature is to turn to scripture and only scripture. Here’s why I say that.

I believe in Sacred Tradition, but when you are debating protestants you have to understand that they don’t believe in Tradition, so you have to come from an acceptable source. Christ and Paul are both recorded as having done this, appealing only to sources valid to their “debaters.” The Book of Acts specifically stated that when the head of household was baptized or believed that he did so with his whole house hold. There are at least two examples read Acts 16 and 18.

I also have an in depth study on my web site called What the Bible Says About Baptism. Its part of a series I am starting. The point is to help dispel the notion that Catholicism, Roman, Old, Orthodox, or Anglican are not Biblical. Section 4 on pgs. 14 and 15 are specifically tuned to this issue. But I suggest you challenge any protestant to use my study with their Bible. It should at least foster some appreciation for your beliefs. And not just on infant Baptism.

 

[Todd_Easton]

According to William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, page 207, almost all of the eighth homily of Origen’s Homilies on Leviticus is extant in the original Greek and in this eighth homily (8:3) Origen says, “…Baptism is given even to infants.” Chances are good but I don’t know for certain that this particular phrase is in the original Greek that is extant.

 

[fineca]

I’m sure it is, actually I’ve found out since posting this originally that Origen’s texts were indeed manipulated but for totally different reasons: he was believed to be a heretic on different grounds and so some of his writings had been changed and destroyed, but this controversy never had anything to do with baptism.

 

[Contarini]

Hi,
Origen is often quoted in support of Infant Baptism. However, there is (I read this on a Pentecostal website) the argument that the original Greek of Origen doesn’t exist any more, we only have the Latin copy, and the translators of that Latin text later admitted they added some things to Origen’s text.
Has anyone heard this argument against Origen supporting Infant Baptism? Do you know how reliable it is, can it be disproven?
Thanks! E

We have the Greek text of some of Origen’s writings. Rufinus, the translator of a number of his writings into Latin, admitted having altered the original text to reflect later doctrinal definitions with regard to the Trinity. Scholars disagree on whether Rufinus did the same thing with regard to other doctrines. I have not heard it suggested (by serious scholars) that he did so with regard to infant baptism. This may be somewhere in the literature that I have not read or have forgotten (at one time I was fairly well acquainted with the scholarly literature on Origen, but that was more than ten years ago), but I can’t see why Rufinus would have tampered with this in particular (a paranoid advocate of believer’s baptism might of course jump to that conclusion, but there is no arguing with such an approach to history). Furthermore, I do not remember in which of Origen’s writings infant baptism is or is not mentioned. As I said, we do have the Greek text of some of his works (and we have some Latin translations by Jerome as well).

Edwin

P.S. I was delayed in posting this and I see that Todd Easton has addressed the question of which of Origen’s writings addresses this issue. Thanks!