(Book II. ch. xi.)

Only those who have made study of it can have any idea how large, and sometimes bewildering, is the literature on the subject of Jewish Proselytes and their Baptism. Our present remarks will be confined to the Baptism of Proselytes.

1. Generally, as regards proselytes (gerim) we have to distinguish between the ger hashaar (proselyte of the gate) and ger toshaḇ (‘sojourner,’ settled among Israel), and again the ger haṣṣedeq (proselyte of righteousness) and ger haberiṯ (proselyte of the covenant). The former are referred to by Josephus (Ant. xiv. 7. 2), and frequently in the New Testament, in the Authorised Version under the designation of those who ‘fear God,’ Act_13:16; Act_13:26; are ‘religious,’ Act_13:43; ‘devout,’ Act_13:50; Act_17:4; Act_13:17; ‘worship God,’ Act_16:14; Act_18:7. Whether the expression ‘devout’ and ‘feared God’ in Act_10:2; Act_10:7 refers to proselytes of the gate is doubtful. As the ‘proselytes of the gate’ only professed their faith in the God of Israel, and merely bound themselves to the observance of the so-called seven Noachic commandments (on which in another place), the question of ‘baptism’ need not be discussed in connection with them, since they did not even undergo circumcision.

2. It was otherwise with ‘the proselytes of righteousness,’ who became ‘children of the covenant,’ ‘perfect Israelites,’ Israelites in every respect, both as regarded duties and privileges. All writers are agreed that three things were required for the admission of such proselytes: Circumcision (milah), Baptism (teḇilah), and a Sacrifice (qorban, in the case of women: baptism and sacrifice) – the latter consisting of a burnt-offering of a heifer, or of a pair of turtle doves or of young doves (Maimonides, Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiii. 5). After the destruction of the Temple promise had to be made of such a sacrifice when the services of the Sanctuary were restored. On this and the ordinances about circumcision it is not necessary to enter further. That baptism was absolutely necessary to make it a proselyte is so frequently stated as not to be disputed (See Maimonides, u.s.; the tractate Massekheth Gerim in Kirchheim’s Septem Libri Talm. Parvi,  pp. 38-44 [which, however, adds little to our knowledge]; Targum on Exo_12:44; Ber. 47b; Kerith. 9a; Jer. Yebam. p. 8d; Yebam. 45b, 46a and b, 48b, 76a; Ab. Sar. 57a, 59a, and other passages). There was, indeed, a difference between Rabbis Joshua and Eliezer, the former maintaining that baptism alone without circumcision, the latter that circumcision alone without baptism, sufficed to make a proselyte, but the sages decided in favour of the necessity of both rites (Yebam. 46a and b). The baptism was to be performed in the presence of three witnesses, ordinarily Sanhedrists (Yebam. 47b), but in case of necessity others might act. The person to be baptized, having cut his hair and nails, undressed completely, made fresh profession of his faith before what were designated ‘the fathers of the baptism’ (our Godfathers, Kethub. 11a; Erub. 15a), and then immersed completely, so that every part of the body was touched by the water. The rite would, of course, be accompanied by exhortations and benedictions (Maimonides, Hilkh. Milah iii. 4; Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiv. 6). Baptism was not to be administered at night, nor on a Sabbath or feast-day (Yebam. 46b). Women were attended by those of their own sex, the Rabbis standing at the door outside. Yet unborn children of proselytes did not require to be baptized, because they were born ‘in holiness’ (Yebam. 78a). In regard to the little children of proselytes opinions differed. A person under age was indeed received, but not regarded as properly an Israelite till he had attained majority. Secret baptism, or where only the mother brought a child, was not acknowledged. In general, the statements of a proselyte about his baptism required attestation by witnesses. But the children of a Jewess or of a proselyte were regarded as Jews, even if the baptism of the father was doubtful.

It was indeed a great thing when, in the words of Maimonides, a stranger sought shelter under the wings of the shekhinah, and the change of condition which he underwent was regarded as complete. The waters of baptism were to him in very truth, though in a far different from the Christian sense, the ‘bath of regeneration’ (Tit_3:5). As he stepped out of these waters he was considered as ‘born anew’ – in the language of the Rabbis, as if he were ‘a little child just born’ (Yeb. 22a; 48b; 97b), as ‘a child of one day’ (Mass. Ger. c. ii.). But this new birth was not ‘a birth from above’ in the sense of moral or spiritual renovation, but only as implying a new relationship to God, to Israel, and to his own past, present, and future. It was expressly enjoined that all the difficulties of his new citizenship should first be set before him, and if, after that, he took upon himself the yoke of the law, he should be told how all those sorrows and persecutions were intended to convey a greater blessing, and all those commandments to redound to greater merit. More especially was he to regard himself as a new man in reference to his past. Country, home, habits, friends, and relations were all changed. The past, with all that had belonged to it, was past, and he was a new man – the old, with its defilements, was buried in the waters of baptism. This was carried out with such pitiless logic as not only to determine such questions as those of inheritance, but that it was declared that, except for the sake of not bringing proselytism into contempt, a proselyte might have wedded his own mother or sister (comp. Yeb. 22a; Sanh. 58b). It is a curious circumstance that marriage with a female proselyte was apparently very popular (Horay. 13a, line 5 from bottom; see also Shem. R. 27), and the Talmud names at least three celebrated doctors who were the offspring of such unions (comp. Derenbourg, Hist. de la Palest., p. 223, note 2). The praises of proselytes and proselytism are also sung in Vayy. R. 1.

If anything could have further enhanced the value of such proselytism, it would nave been its supposed antiquity. Tradition traced it up to Abraham and Sarah, and the expression (Gen_12:5) ‘the souls that they had gotten’ was explained as referring to their proselytes, since ‘every one that makes a proselyte is as if he made (created) him’ (Ber. R. 39, comp. also the Targums Pseudo-Jon. and Jerus. and Midr. on Cant. i. 3). The Talmud, differing in this from the Targumim, finds in Exo_2:5 a reference to the baptism of Pharaoh’s daughter (Sotah 12b, line 3; Megill. 13a, line 11). In Shem. R. 27 Jethro is proved to have been a convert, from the circumstance that his original name had been Jether (Ex iv. 18), an additional letter (Jethro), as in the case of Abraham, having been added to his name when be became a proselyte (comp. also Zebhach. 116a and Targum Ps.-Jon. on Exo_18:6; Exo_18:27, Num_24:21. To pass over other instances, we are pointed to Ruth (Targum on Rth_1:10; Rth_1:15), and to Nebuzaradan – who is also described as a proselyte (Sanh. 96b, line 19 from the bottom). But it is said that in the days of David and Solomon proselytes were not admitted by the Sanhedrin because their motives were suspected (Yeb. 76a), or that at least they were closely watched.

But although the baptism of proselytes seems thus far beyond doubt, Christian theologians have discussed the question, whether the rite was practised at the time of Christ, or only introduced after the destruction of the Temple and its Services, to take the place of the Sacrifice previously offered. The controversy, which owed its origin chiefly to dogmatic prejudices on the part of Lutherans, Calvinists, and Baptists has since been continued on historical or quasi-historical grounds. The silence of Josephus and Philo can scarcely be quoted in favour of the later origin of the rite. On the other hand, it may be urged that, as Baptism did not take the place of sacrifices in any other instance, it would be difficult to account for the origin of such a rite in connection with the admission of proselytes.

Again, if a Jew who had become Levitically defiled, required immersion, it is difficult to suppose that a heathen would have been admitted to all the services of the Sanctuary without a similar purification. But we have also positive testimony (which the objections of Winer, Keil, and Leyrer, in my opinion do not invalidate), that the baptism of proselytes existed in the time of Hillel and Shammai. For, whereas the school of Shammai is said to have allowed a proselyte who was circumcised on the eve of the Passover, to partake after baptism of the Passover, the school of Hillel forbade it. This controversy must be regarded as proving that at that time (previous to Christ) the baptism of proselytes was customary (Pes. viii. 8, Eduy. v. 2).