MARSHALL The Meaning of the Verb 'Baptize' 19
This terminology, however, is at least ambiguous. Similar language of
'going down' and 'coming up' was used of proselyte baptism, and has
been interpreted as referring to immersion.^33 However, E. Stommel claims
that Jewish proselyte baptism was not by immersion; John's modification
of this practice, which led to his being called 'the Baptizer', was that hepoured water over the candidates standing in the water of the Jordan.^34 It is
generally assumed that the Qumran sect practised immersion.^35 The same
is also usually affirmed in the case of John, although there have been dis-
senting voices. Thus in his TDNT article on u5cop, L. Goppelt raises the
question whether John practised baptism by immersion or affusion; he is
inclined to prefer the latter view.^36 And H. Schumann strongly defends- D. Daube, TheNew Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athlone Press,
1956), pp. 111-12. - Stommel, 'Christliche Taufriten', pp. 8-11: 'Der Proselyt tauchte nicht im
Wasser unter sondern in das Wasser ein\ He claims that there is no reference to
immersion in the sources (cf. the texts cited in SB I, pp. 108,111); they refer to going
down into the water, initially at least to waist-depth (or to the neck, in the case of
women). However, in m. Erub. 4b the required depth is 3 cubits (c. 1.5 metres); the
whole body had to be cleansed, and it is perhaps more likely that this was
accomplished by immersion. - M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins (London: Nelson, 1961), pp. 96-97;
this seems to be required by CD 10.11 where the prescribed quantity of water is not 'less
than the amount which covers a man'. However, the DSS also use the language of
sprinkling both literally (1QS 3.8-9) and metaphorically of the way in which God can
'sprinkle over [a] man the spirit of truth like lustral water' (1QS 4.21). R.L. Webb, John
the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study (JSNTSup, 62; Sheffield, JSOT
Press, 1991), pp. 144-46, holds that the language in 1QS 3.8-9 refers in fact to immer-
sion, since all the other Qumran evidence appears to support immersion as the method of
purification. The reference to sprinkling in 4Q271 frag. 1 2.11 (Martinez, Dead Sea
Scrolls, p. 58) is obscure. 4Q394 frag. 1 1.17-18 (Martinez, Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 80)
refers to the special case of the red heifer. The same is true of the references to sprin-
kling in 4Q274 frag. 2 1.1 -2 and 4Q277 frag. 1 6-9 (Martinez, Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 88,
90). Sprinkling is associated with bathing in water in 11Q19 49.16-20; 50.10-15
(contamination by contact with a dead person; Martinez, Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 169-70;
cf. Webb, John the Baptizer, pp. Ill, 137). In 4Q414, which is designated as a 'baptis-
mal liturgy', the phrases 'he will enter (KIIT) the water' and 'he will come out of plET)
the [water]' are used (frag. 2 2.5; frag. 12 6; Martinez, Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 439). - L. Goppelt, TDNT, VIII, pp. 314-33, esp. p. 332. His argument rests on the
analogy of proselyte baptism which (on his view) was practised by dipping or by
affusion. He further notes that in Did. 7.1-3 the normal procedure is for the candidate
to go into running water or still water (apparently in a vessel), but that where neither is
available, it suffices to affuse the candidate on the head. The case is not compelling. It