Talk:Immersion baptism

Article seems to be incorrect

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move over the disambiguation page. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Immersion baptism → Submersion —

What is being described is submersion, not merely immersion. Please see baptism#Immersion to see the distinction. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems like from that article that immersion is a broad term, including both submersion and partial immersion with pouring. Personally, I've most often heard immersion used synonymously with submersion by Baptists. Swampyank (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but baptism#Immersion indicates that the technical definition is "Immersion baptism (as distinguished from submersion) is a method of baptism ... whereby part of the candidate's body was submerged in the baptismal water which was poured over the remainder". That is not what is discussed here. What is discussed here is what baptism#Submersion describes. Is the incorrect use of the term immersion relevant? At the very least, the term baptism should not be attached. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As expected, Swampyank's attempt to water-down the definition in the larger article has been reverted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose move It seems clear to me that this article covers both partial and total immersion. The terms "immersion" and "submersion" are clearly explained here. Amandajm (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

But the definition is technically wrong whether discussing partial immersion (technically immersion) or total immersion (technically submersion). It would be like making an article about the diesel engine and wording it so that it could be about the internal combustion engine and then placing the article under the latter's title. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Many sources (dictionaries, etc.) I've found use the word immersion to mean submersion, so I think technically immersion can mean either form. If anything, the "baptism" article is misleading when describing the forms. I can try to correct that. Swampyank (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Are dictionary editors theologians? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Admin note: Independently of the merits of the above discussion whether the article covers "immersion" or "submersion" or both, please note that Submersion is already taken by a disambiguation page. Unless you wish to argue that submersion baptism is the "primary meaning" of the term "submersion" (which I'd find doubtful, given the other meanings cited there), please specify a suitably disambiguated target title. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There could be two articles named "complete immersion" and "partial immersion," but I Oppose move and disagree with such an idea because the term "immersion" seems used much more commonly by denominations completely immersing the body during a believer baptism as it is defined by those practicing it....partial immersion is only done during believer baptisms (adult), therefore it is very rare today in modern denominations which predominantly practice infant baptism.Swampyank (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Submersion (baptism) and Immersion (baptism). As an encyclopedia, is our job to reflect common usage or reflect correct terminology? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A word is not always a single objective truth, but a symbol for something else (much like the act of baptism). A word can be "officially" defined by different denominations, especially the largest adult baptizers in the world (Southern Baptists in America) who define "immersion" as complete immersion of the body and do not use the term "submersion" with any frequency. British language writers in one religious dictionary, or an extinct, ancient Armenian sect can certainly define it differently based upon practice, usage, and English language/translations variations. This is not to delegitimatize their claims, but to recognize the subjectivity of certain "experts," and the fact that millions readers (living) will probably define something differently based upon how their faith defines it. Assuming that millions of people are incorrect because your sources have different opinions about a word strikes me as a tad arrogant. Swampyank (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Question to Walter Görlitz: by saying "Submersion (baptism) and Immersion (baptism)", are you saying that you think the article should in fact be split in two? If yes, that's not the same thing as moving it. Which is it to be:
  1. Move the whole existing article to submersion (baptism)?
  2. Leave the existing article at immersion baptism, but factor out a new split article to be written at submersion (baptism)?
  3. Move the existing article to submersion (baptism) but then factor out a new split article here at immersion baptism?
• Can you please clarify what you actually propose to do? Otherwise the move request will be impossible to process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

in reverse order, I propose nothing. I'm just wondering what the best direction might be. Common usage is obviously incorrect. People who are discuss submersion routinely refer to it as immersion or add an adjective (full immersion) to describe it. It reminds me of express checkouts in North America where the sign reads 12 items or less, which is grammatically incorrect (twelve items or fewer is correct). There are many instances of this sort of thing. My question was simply to discuss whether we should be reflecting usage or correct terminology. I would also suggest that this article, at the very least, should be moved to Immersion (baptism) and another article be created Submersion (baptism) only if required and other editors feel it is necessary. It could simply redirect to this article since both topics are discussed here. That is, however, not a proposal, just my opinion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, you are not proposing anything? Weren't you the person who filed this move request?

Yes. That the article be moved because it discusses the topic of submersion with a title of immersion. It's confusing. However, with that said, I'm not suggesting that it be done, it was starting a discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't think you have so far substantiated your basic premise that the usage that subsumes full submersion under "immersion" is "incorrect". According to the article, there is a well-documented official usage by at least some relevant church bodies that treats "immersion" as the proper term for what you want to be called "submersion". Other likewise well-documented usage treats full submersion as a special sub-type of immersion ("full immersion", with the extra qualifier). Both usages would evidently make it legitimate to treat full submersion under the same heading as immersion, together with the other (non-"full") types, as the article currently does. There is no obvious reason, other than your mere assertion, why one usage or the other should be regarded as "correct". If the article was to be split, how would those divergent terminological perspectives be treated, without confusing the reader and without passing a POV judgment on what is "correct" terminology? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There is well-documented, official usage of 12 items or less as well. That does not mean it's grammatically correct. It's not POV to state that submersion, when used correctly is when something or someone is place below the surface water and immersion, when correctly used describes when something is place in water. There's no debating the correct use of the language. The other fact is the many people use the term incorrectly, as the article reflects. So now the question is do we go with common usage or do we reflect the definitions of the words? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I'm a linguist. The argument that "12 items or less" is "grammatically incorrect" doesn't fly well with the likes of us. And I'm afraid using it as an argument by analogy for your submersion case isn't very convincing either. Even ignoring the fact that your argument is an example of the etymological fallacy, it fails even under your own premises. Even on the level of the original Latin meanings, "placing something so that it is fully under water" is in fact a special case of "placing something in water"; thus, the two meanings are not mutually exclusive, and "immersion" can validly be used as a cover term for both the full ("sub-") type and the others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey. It is grammatically incorrect. Sorry you don't understand. I don't understand your appeal to the Latin origins, either that or you don't understand the Latin origins. Sub is the Latin prefix for below. Im is the prefix for in or on. Something can be in water without being beneath it. It's just that simple, That's also the case here. Immerse means that it is the water and it's not necessarily beneath it. Submerse does not ever carry that meaning. It is always below the water. That is the point.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey. You missed the point. Sure, something can be "in" the water without being "beneath" it. But it cannot be "beneath" it without being "in" it, can it? "in" (im-) is the wider concept, the cover term. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I understood your point. You missed both my points. 1) If sub means beneath, then it is the primary term for the action and im is not. 2) What is the role of Wikipedia? Is it to reflect common usage or technical usage?--Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You can immerse or submerge your knees or your whole body. The words are certainly synonymous. To say that the broader term of "immersion" doesn't include full immersion (or as you call it "submersion") seems logically inconsistent and biased, considering millions of people disagree with you according to their official doctrine. You and your sock puppet have done quite a job on the baptism and immersion baptism articles to perpetuate your narrow definition. Swampyank (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

They are not synonymous. By definition if you submerge your leg, it is completely under water. If you immerse your leg, is it completely under water or is it partially under water? You can only know by context. And if you reduce that to only your knee, you still don't know without context. You have to add full immersion to get the context.

As for sock puppets, User:Esoglou is an editor who showed some knowledge of baptism and I asked for assistance on this page. Check User talk:Esoglou. I am not User:Esoglou --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. You clearly fail to understand the concept of a cover term here – it's been demonstrated that there is a wider term and a more specific term, and your insistence that only the more specific term can be "correct" simply doesn't reflect linguistic reality. But in any case, this is probably moot, since it's quite clear at this point that this move request isn't going to go anywhere. Somebody will soon close it. (I planned to do it myself, but now that I've let myself be drawn so much into the discussion, I probably shouldn't.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I can come back from that erudite and dismissive whatever, but here's my effort: you've missed my point so obviously I'm not making it. Where is the Sumbersion (baptism) article? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

May I ask Walter: Now that the article explicitly distinguishes three distinct senses in which the phrase "immersion baptism" is shown to be in actual fact used (the technical sense, which is Walter's, the "equals submersion" sense, which is the one Swampyank is pushing, and the inclusive sense, a sense that has room enough to include both these senses, limiting itself to neither), the article is no longer as it was when he made his motion for a move, and should he not therefore withdraw his motion? There is no part of the article that is not about immersion baptism in one or more of these senses. Esoglou (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I could withdraw it, and suggest only that it be moved to immersion (baptism). I am also prepared to merge the two sections in the baptism article as well since there isn't the need for the distinction. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Terminology

There is every need to keep these two distinct methods of baptizing separate in the baptism article, precisely because they are two distinct methods, not one. It is only the word that is ambiguous. The title of the present article is "immersion baptism", which brings the verbal ambiguity to the fore. On the contrary, in the baptism article, the methods is what is discussed, and the choice of words used to label these two methods can be flexible. The sources that Swampyank prefers generally concentrate on the submersion meaning of "immersion" to the extent of saying nothing about the other method; they therefore use no term whatever for that other method. Sources that do discuss both methods in a technical or scientific manner - for instance, the ODCC - use the term "immersion" (in its technical meaning). For that reason, "immersion" (in its technical sense) seems to be the most appropriate term to use when Wikipedia discusses these two (out of the four) manners of baptizing as such. Only if a better word were found for that method of baptism could it be used in place of "immersion" (technical sense). In discussing in the baptism article the four methods of baptizing, there is certainly no need to apply the label "immersion" to the submersion method, since another quite unambiguous term exists and is already in use.

I don't think moving this article to "immersion (baptism)" would be an improvement, rather the contrary. Esoglou (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm very confused. Either there is a distinction between immersion and submersion and we should define it clearly, or there isn't. So which is it? This article speaks at length about the latter and to my eye does not clearly define the distinction. With that said, since the term immersion often carries subsumes (not imsumes I'll have you note) the meaning of submersion, it might be worthwhile to note the distinction for those who have one and also note the lack of distinction to others. I am speaking of the edit and reverting of the edit in the Baptism article now and not directly to this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "immersion" is one, but ambiguous. The methods of baptism to which it refers are two, and clearly distinct. One of these two methods is referred to both as submersion and as immersion (with or without the adjective "total"). The other is referred to only as immersion (sometimes with the adjective "partial". The word is ambiguous, but the realities are distinct. Esoglou (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A Baptist would generally say that "immersion" baptism means completely covering the body with water (what you call submersion...although the term "submersion" is used infrequently in the vernacular even amongst outsiders. Submersion is beginning to feel like a pejorative towards speech you disagree with because you insist on using "submersion" instead of "immersion" or "complete immersion", the more commonly used terms...while you ignore the term partial immersion for Eastern baptism).

A member of an Eastern denomination that baptizes adults would generally say kneeling in shallow water in conjunction with pouring is "immersion." (what is known amongst some outsiders as "partial immersion")

To say that one definition is strict and official is very misleading, because each denomination considers their definition correct. I have no doubt that you are already aware of my point. Swampyank (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in casual conversation I would use (and have on many occasions used) immersion to describe fully covering the body and head with water. I do understand the distinction and if I were writing on the subject would clearly distinguish between the two terms. That's why I have been trying to determine the stance that Wikipedia should be taking. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If textbooks, dictionaries, theologians, official doctrines and common usage define "immersion" differently, this should be reflected very clearly in the baptism and immersion baptism articles, not explicitly favoring or confusing readers about one approach being "immersion." Swampyank (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

For the two quite distinct methods of baptism in question, it seems best in an encyclopedic article to use the word "submersion" for the method unambiguously described by that term. Or is there an alternative unambiguous term to use instead? To indicate the other method, the article must choose some word. A term that has in fact been used encyclopedically as a technical term for it is "immersion". Is there a better term to use instead? Esoglou (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oxford's Church dictionary says that "complete immersion" (or total immersion) is interchangeable with "submersion" in its definition. I think most Baptists would at least recognize the term "complete immersion" (this is not meant as an insult, to presume that other traditions are not complete...but simply a phrase that is used regularly, presumably by many encyclopedia readers). Eastern church members may not prefer "partial immersion." We need to differentiate or perhaps leave the definitions under different headings and define immersion separately. I'm not sure how to refer to the Eastern immersion tradition either without creating animosity. Swampyank (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It is doubtless my fault that I do not fully understand what concrete terms you are proposing as replacements for "immersion" and "submersion" in Wikipedia articles on baptism. These two terms are in possession for quite some time. Since the matter is contentious, changing them will require consensus among editors. It would be good if you would present concrete proposals on the Talk:Baptism page. Esoglou (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be out of the question to create clear sections indicating the differences? It is not only Baptists but I would argue most denominations that come out of the anabaptist tradition would side with immersion equating with submersion. I was shocked to first see a distinction on the baptism article. I would argue that it doesn't matter to many in paedobaptists camp (Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and those in the reform movement). It appears that there is a distinction between how anabaptists and Orthodox view the terms. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't the two existing sections in the Baptism article (Baptism#Immersion and Baptism#Submersion) clearly indicate the differences? Aren't the differences quite obvious also in the three images of immersion (technical term) - one of the 15th-century and two from early-Christian times - and the images of submersion in rivers or a large bathtub or tank? The differences exist objectively and at least for Baptists are important. Esoglou (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The baptism article does make a distinction, but then blurs the lines again as does this article. If the distinction is along denominational lines, perhaps we could make that more clear. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely it isn't the same thing to get yourself plunged under water and to go into a shallow pool and have water poured over your head? To me the difference seems altogether obvious. It must be obvious also to Baptists, who would find unacceptable the form of baptism pictured in the three "immersion" images. I see no blurring of the difference between being plunged beneath the water or just standing or kneeling in water and having water poured on you. In what way is that difference blurred? Esoglou (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I will have to read this article more closely before I comment again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope that, before you make your next comment, which I will read tomorrow, you will notice that I have altered "this article" in an attempt to underline the clear difference there is between the two forms of baptism under consideration. Esoglou (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In respose to your earlier question, my suggestion is to not refer to complete dunking of the body as submersion, because Baptists generally do not (in thousands of books and articles), and this article is about "immersion" not another word. Baptists generally call it immersion or "complete immersion," which seem like less confusing terms to a Baptist reader (or other adult baptizer denominations). "Complete immersion" and "partial immersion" seem like simple ways to define "immersion," but it is unfair to call one immersion brushing aside thousands of books stating a contrary definition. Perhaps the two definitions of "immersion" would need to be defined separately under different headings (eg. Baptist immersion baptism, Eastern immersion baptism, rather than partial and submersion). "Submersion" to Baptists is probably as confusing and foreign as "partial immersion" is to Eastern church members (and other non-sprinkling denominations) reading this article, despite the so-called "technical" merits of the superiority of one side, which will create endless strife. Look in any English thesaurus, the submersion (submerge) and immersion (immerge) are synonyms, this "technical" claim is disputable...this article is about immersion baptism, not other forms types of immersion, submersion, or other related phrases.Swampyank (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And so perhaps, as I suggested above, providing two definitions: one for anabaptist (like you and me) and one for the various orthodox denominations. I don't know how to appease the rest (or if they care at all). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have split this long discussion, putting the heading "Terminology" at the point where it veered off from Walter's proposal to change the title of the article. Can we perhaps consider that proposal withdrawn and close its discussion? Walter said only: "I suppose I could withdraw it." Would he indicate now whether he has decided to do so?

As indicated in this article, the definitions of the word "immersion" are three, not two:

1. One definition of "immersion baptism" corresponds to the early Christian practice, still continued in the Eastern Orthodox Church and perhaps (I don't know) also among Armenian Protestants who claim to continue the Paulician tradition: the practice of pouring water on the head of someone standing or kneeling in shallow water. Those who call this form "immersion baptism" use the word "submersion" to describe the form of baptism in which someone is plunged under the water. In this, they are using the same technical terminology as in mathematics, medicine and language learning, whereby "immersion" is opposed to "submersion". In this technical terminology, something is either immersion or submersion, and cannot be both.
2. A second definition of "immersion baptism" takes it to mean plunging someone entirely under water and as having no other meaning. I suppose that many who use this definition of the phrase would have no particular name for the early Christian form of baptism, treating it simply as affusion baptism (pouring water on someone's head) and as no different from standing on stone, soil or flour.
3. Others use a third definition of "immersion baptism": for them, the term "immersion baptism" can be applied both to plunging someone under water (which they call total immersion), and to pouring water on someone standing in water (which they call partial immersion).

In order to speak clearly about the four different forms of baptism that experts have distinguished, the article on Baptism must use one of these three definitions as a working definition, while also indicating that other definitions exist. Walter's initial difficulty seems to have been the mention of the existence of different definitions. He spoke of "blurring". But now he wants two definitions (why not three?) to be given. As I said, in describing the different forms of baptism, one definition must be employed as a working definition. The definition that is at present used in the Baptism article (with a mention of the existence of others) is the first definition of the three, the one that distinguishes "immersion" from "submersion" and puts the two terms in opposition, as in other scientific fields. If someone wants to change the established usage of the Baptism article, he should make a formal proposal, not here, but on the Talk page of the Baptism article. For this article, which is not on all four forms of administering baptism, but on the ambiguous term "immersion baptism", we need do no more than indicate the three definitions that exist and the two forms of administerng baptism to which the three contrasting definitions refer. We don't have to pick any of them out as a working definition and can treat them all equally. Esoglou (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The normative use of 'immersion' in standard English dictionaries and the relevant literature is submersion, not 'partial immersion'.

• 'Although the Eastern Orthodox Church immerses babies, the Baptist tradition has been the strongest advocate of immersion.' (Stanley J. Grenz, 'Theology for the Community of God', 1994)

The same author notes that nonimmersionists argue that 'water was poured on the head of the baptismal candidate standing in a river or body of water', indicating that the author understands this act to be a nonimmersion:

• 'Nonimmersionists do not deem this exegetical evidence conclusive. They point out that baptizo is broader than its literal meaning, for it is used occasionally in a figurative sense (Mark 7:4; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 11:38; 1 Cor. 10:2). Further, although the descriptions of New Testament baptisms indicate that baptism occurred with both the officiator and the candidate standing in water, they do not state specifically what happened in the act. In fact, critics argue, early Christian art may indicate that water was poured on the head of the baptismal candidate standing in a river or body of water.' (Stanley J. Grenz, 'Theology for the Community of God', 1994)

The same author identifies the word 'immerse' as synonymous with 'to dip':

• 'It has frequently been argued that the word baptizein invariably means "to dip or "immerse," and that therefore Christian baptism must have been performed originally by immersion only, and that the other two forms, affusion and aspersion, are invalid - that there can be no real baptism unless the method of immersion be used.' (Stanley J. Grenz, 'Theology for the Community of God', 1994)

The same author specifically distinguishes immersion not only from affusion, but from 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head'. The author actually defines affusion as 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head':

• 'It is a somewhat curious fact that if the evidence of the written texts, whether ancient canons or writings of the early fathers, be studied by themselves, the natural conclusion would seem to be that immersion was the almost universal form of administering the rite; but if the witness of the earliest pictorial representations be collected, then we must infer that affusion was the usual method, and that immersion was exceptional; for the pictorial representations, almost without exception , display baptism performed by affusion, i.e., the recipient is seen standing in water while the minister pours water on the head.' (Stanley J. Grenz, 'Theology for the Community of God', 1994)

This author identifies immersion as 'going underwater':

• 'The best parallel we have for the baptism of John may be the immersion of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip, which was clearly not a case of pouring but of going underwater in a natural flow or reservoir encountered by the travelers on the road between Jerusalem and Gaza.' (Joan E. Taylor, 'The Immerser', 1997)

This author (speaking of Jewish rituals), does the same:

• 'Presumably D5 and D6 apply to men and women alike; after completing the immersion (D5) - that is, after submerging totally in the water and emerging - the convert, whether male or female, is deemed to be like an Israelite in all respects (D6).' (Shaye J. D. Cohen, 'The Beginnings of Jewishness', 2001)

This author does the same:

• 'The baptism of John did have certain similarities to the ritual washings at Qumran: both involved withdrawal to the desert to await the lord; both were linked to an ascetic lifestyle; both included total immersion in water; and both had an eschatological context.' (Maxwell E. Johnson, 'Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation', 1995)

And again:

• 'This ritual is the ultimate source of the form of John's ritual which apparently involved total immersion in water.'(Maxwell E. Johnson, 'Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation', 1995)

Another author also distinguishes immersion from the traditional image of John the Baptist pouring water over Jesus' head:

• 'The fact that he chose a permanent and deep river suggests that more than a token quantity of water was needed, and both the preposition "in" (the Jordan) and the basic meaning of the verb "baptize" probably indicate immersion. In v. 16 Matthew will speak of Jesus "coming up out of the water." The traditional depiction in Christian art of John the Baptist pouring water over Jesus' head may therefore be based on later Christian practice.' (R. T. France, 'The Gospel of Matthew', 2007)

The same author makes it clear he is using the term 'immersion' as a reference to dipping, plunging, burying, not to any kind of partial immersion:

• 'BDAG translates baptizw as "plunge, dip, wash" as well as "baptize"; they mention non-Christian usage outside a ritual context as "to put or go under water in a variety of senses." The symbolism of death, burial, and resurrection found in later Christian baptism (Rom 6:3-4) also suggests immersion. See further R.L. Webb. John, 179-180. J.E. Taylor, John, 49-58, also argues for immersion (probably self-immersion) and translates Job's title as "John the Immerser."'

Again, same author (different work):

• 'This indicates that the metaphor is perhaps less surprising than we might first think, but none of these "liquid" references to the Spirit easily allows the idea of dipping or immersion.' (R. T. France, 'The Gospel of Mark', 2002)

Another author:

• 'Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that while the meal and table companionship after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension did remain distinguishing characteristics of the Christian community (cf. Acts 2:42), a community that came even to place the banquet table at the architectural center of its assembly places, rites called either baptisma (baptism, immersion, or dipping) or loutron (bath or washing) came almost immediately to serve as the means of initiation into this community.' (Maxwell E. Johnson, 'The Rites of Christian Initiation', 2007)

Even this author, hostile against submersion, uses 'immersion' to refer to submersion, not to any kind of partial immersion:

• 'In some cases, the width is also insufficient for the immersion of any but small children, despite the presence of large numbers of adult candidates in this early period.' (Ralph E. Bass, Jr., Ralph E Bass, 'What about Baptism', 1999)
• 'The baptismal fonts still found among the ruins of the most ancient Greek churches in Palestine, as at Tekoa and Gophna, and going back apparently to the very early times, are not large enough to admit of the baptism of adult persons by immersion, and were obviously never intended for that use.' (Ralph E. Bass, Jr., Ralph E Bass, 'What about Baptism', 1999)
• 'As can be seen from the Old Syriac Version of the New Testament, from the Didache, from the early baptismal fonts, and from the Catacombs, baptisms in the very early church, were done by pouring or sprinkling, not by immersion.' (Ralph E. Bass, Jr., Ralph E Bass, 'What about Baptism', 1999)

Yet another author identifying 'immersed in' as 'dipped in', not to any kind of partial immersion:

• 'There is a sense in v. 27 that in being dipped in (immersed in) the anointed, one envelops/dyes/covers oneself with the anointed.' (David W. Odell-Scott, 'Paul's Critique of Theocracy', 2003)

And yet another:

• 'Basil of Caesarea took the sign of Jonah a step further and interpreted Jonah's three days in the belly of the monster as a figure of the triple immersion in baptism. Since Christian baptism is itself a symbol of Jesus' passion, death, and resurrection, the baptismal connection would be logical even without the added detail of the water - water into which Jonah is tossed and the initiate is immersed. Jonah's nudity thus symbolizes the nudity of the candiates for baptism as they are dipped and "reborn" from the womb like waters of the baptismal font.' (Robin Margaret Jensen, 'Understanding Early Christian Art', 2000)--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Division by denomination

Just re-read the article. It's much more balanced now. There are still a few places where I feel tempted to put a {{who}} in, but overall, it's a good article. Now my main concern is over the title. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Forgot to add, The divisions by denomination seems a bit more clear now although it's still limited. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)