Proselyte

A new convert to some religion or religious sect. Among the Hebrews, proselytes were distinguished into two sorts: the first called proselytes of the gate, because suffered to live among them, and were those who observed the moral law only, and the rules imposed on the children of Noah; the second were called proselytes of justice, who engaged to receive circumcision, and the whole law of Moses, and enjoyed all the privileges of a native Hebrew.

The Hebrews called a proselyte Ger, or Necher, which signifies a stranger. And as a proselyte, meant a proselyte of the gate, one converted from heathenism to the truth, and admitted into what was called the court of the Gentiles, no doubt the name was very proper. Such was the honest centurion, Cornelius. (Acts x.)

Προσηλυτος, signifies a stranger, a foreigner; the Hebrew word גר , or גכר , also denotes a stranger, one who comes from abroad, or from another place. In the language of the Jews, those were called by this name who came to dwell in their country, or who embraced their religion, being not Jews by birth. In the New Testament they are called sometimes proselytes, and sometimes Gentiles, fearing God, Act 2:5; Act 10:2; Act 10:22; Act 13:16; Act 13:50. The Jews distinguish two kinds of proselytes. The first, proselytes of the gate; the others, proselytes of justice or righteousness. The first dwelt in the land of Israel, or even out of that country, and, without obliging themselves to circumcision, or to any other ceremony of the law, feared and worshipped the true God, observing the rules imposed on Noah. These were, according to the rabbins,

1. To abstain from idolatry;

2. From blasphemy;

3. From murder;

4. From adultery;

5. From theft;

6. To appoint just and upright judges;

7. Not to eat the flesh of any animal cut off while it was alive.

Maimonides says, that the first six of these precepts were given to Adam, and the seventh to Noah. The privileges of proselytes of the gate were, first, that through holiness they might have hope of eternal life. Secondly, they could dwell in the land of Israel, and share in the outward prosperities of it. It is said they did not dwell in the cities, but only in the suburbs and the villages; but it is certain that the Jews often admitted into their cities, not only proselytes of habitation, but also Gentiles and idolaters, as appears by the reproaches on this account, throughout the Scriptures.

Proselytes of justice or of righteousness were those converted to Judaism, who had engaged themselves to receive circumcision, and to observe the whole law of Moses. Thus were they admitted to all the prerogatives of the people of the Lord. The rabbins inform us that, before circumcision was administered to them, and before they were admitted into the religion of the Hebrews, they were examined about the motives of their conversion; whether the change was voluntary, or whether it proceeded from interest, fear, ambition, &c. When the proselyte was well proved and instructed, they gave him circumcision; and when the wound of his circumcision healed, they gave him baptism, by plunging his whole body into a cistern of water, by only one immersion. Boys under twelve years of age, and girls under thirteen, could not become proselytes till they had obtained the consent of their parents, or, in case of refusal, the concurrence of the officers of justice. Baptism in respect of girls had the same effect as circumcision in respect of boys. Each of them, by means of this, received, as it were, a new birth, so that those who were their parents before were no longer regarded as such after this ceremony, and those who before were slaves now became free.

Many, however, are of opinion that there appears to be no ground whatever in Scripture for this distinction of proselytes of the gate, and proselytes of righteousness. “According to my idea,” says Dr. Tomline, “proselytes were those, and those only, who took upon themselves the obligation of the whole Mosaic law, but retained that name till they were admitted into the congregation of the Lord as adopted children. Gentiles were allowed to worship and offer sacrifices to the God of Israel in the outer court of the temple; and some of them, persuaded of the sole and universal sovereignty of the Lord Jehovah, might renounce idolatry without embracing the Mosaic law; but such persons appear to me never to be called proselytes in Scripture, or in any ancient Christian writer.” He also observes that “the term proselytes of the gate is derived from an expression frequent in the Old Testament; namely, ‘the stranger that is within thy gates;’ but I think it evident that the strangers were those Gentiles who were permitted to live among the Jews under certain restrictions, and whom the Jews were forbidden ‘to vex or oppress,’ so long as they live in a peaceable manner.” Dr. Lardner says, “I do not believe that the notion of two sorts of Jewish proselytes can be found in any Christian writer before the fourteenth century or later.” Dr. Jennings also observes that “there does not appear to be sufficient evidence in the Scripture history of the existence of such proselytes of the gate, as the rabbins mention; nor, indeed, of any who with propriety can be styled proselytes, except such as fully embraced the Jewish religion.”

Proselyte, the name applied in the New Testament and the Septuagint to converts from heathenism to Judaism. In the Old Testament such persons are called strangers and settlers. For the reception and treatment of these, provision was made in the law of Moses (Exo 12:48; Lev 17:8; Num 15:15, etc.); and the whole Jewish state was considered as composed of the two classes, Jews, and strangers within their gates, or proselytes. In later years this distinction was observed even to the second generation. It has been customary to make a distinction between two classes of Jewish proselytes, the one denominated proselytes of the gate, and the other proselytes of the covenant, or of righteousness. Under the former have been included those converts from heathenism who had so far renounced idolatry as to become worshippers of the one God, and to observe, generally, what have been called the seven Noachic precepts, viz., against idolatry, profanity, incest, murder, dishonesty, eating blood, or things strangled, and allowing a murderer to live, but had not formally enrolled themselves in the Jewish state. The latter is composed of those who had submitted to circumcision, and in all respects become converts to Judaism. The accuracy of this distinction, however, has been called in question by several, especially by Lardner, whose arguments appear decisive of the question (Works, vol. vi. pp. 522-533; vol. xi. pp. 313-324, 8vo. edit. 1788). That there were, in later times especially, many among the Jews who had renounced the grosser parts of heathenism without having come over entirely to Judaism, is beyond all doubt; but that these were ever counted proselytes admits of question. Certain it is that the proselytes mentioned in the New Testament were all persons who had received circumcision, and entered the pale of the Jewish community.

The rites by which a proselyte was initiated are declared by the Rabbins to have been, in the case of a man, three, viz., circumcision, baptism, and a free-will sacrifice. In the case of a woman the first was of necessity omitted. As to the first and last of these, their claim to be regarded as accordant with the ancient practice of the Jews has been on all hands admitted without scruple; but it has been matter of keen question whether the second can be admitted to have been practiced before the Christian era. The substance of much learned discussion on this head we shall attempt summarily to state.

There is no direct evidence that this rite was practiced by the Jews before the second or third century of the Christian era; but the fact that it was practiced by them then necessitates the inquiry: when and how did such a custom arise among them? That they borrowed it from the Christians is an opinion which cannot be for a moment admitted by any who reflect on the implacable hatred with which the Jews for many centuries regarded Christianity, its ordinances, and its professors. Some learned men have adopted the notion that the custom of baptizing proselytes arose gradually out of the habit which the Jews had of purifying by ablution whatever they deemed unclean, and that, it was not formally adopted as an initiatory rite till after the destruction of the temple service, and when in consequence of imperial edicts it became difficult to circumcise converts. But as the Rabbins prescribed both baptism and circumcision as initiatory rites for proselytes, it is manifestly absurd to say that the former was instituted in consequence of the difficulty of performing the latter. And this hypothesis still leaves unremoved the master difficulty of that side of the question which it is designed to support, viz., the great improbability of the Jews adopting for the first time subsequently to the death of Christ, a religious rite which was well known to be the initiatory rite of Christianity. On the other hand we have, in favor of the hypothesis that proselyte baptism was practiced anterior to the time of our Lord, some strongly corroborative evidence. We have, in the first, place, the unanimous tradition of the Jewish Rabbins, who impute to the practice an antiquity commensurate almost with that of their nation. Secondly, we have the fact that the Baptism of John the Baptist was not regarded by the people as aught of a novelty, nor was represented by him as resting for its authority upon any special divine relation. Thirdly, we have the fact that the Pharisees looked upon the baptism both of John and Jesus as a mode of proselyting men to their religious views (Joh 4:1-3), and that the dispute between the Jews and some of John’s disciples about purifying was apparently a dispute as to the competing claims of John and Jesus to make proselytes (Joh 3:25, sq.). Fourthly, we have the fact, that on the day of Pentecost Pete addressed to a multitude of persons collected from several different and distant countries, Jews and proselytes, an exhortation to ’Repent and be baptized’ (Act 2:38), from which it may be fairly inferred that they all knew what baptism means and also its connection with repentance or a change of religious views. Fifthly, we have the fact that according to Josephus, the Essenes were in the habit, before admitting a new convert into their society, solemnly and ritually to purify him with waters of cleansing, a statement which cannot be understood of their ordinary ablutions before meals, for Josephus expressly adds, that even after this lustration two years had to elapse before the neophyte enjoyed the privilege of living with the proficients. And, Sixthly, we have the mode in which Josephus speaks of the baptism of John, when, after referring to John’s having exhorted the people to virtue, righteousness, and godliness as preparatory to baptism, he adds, ’For it appeared to him that baptism was admissible no when they used it for obtaining forgiveness of some sins, but for the purification of the body when the soul had been already cleansed by righteousness’ (Antiq. xviii. 5. 2); which seems to indicate the conviction of the historian that John did not introduce this rite, but only gave to it a peculiar meaning.

On these grounds we adhere to the opinion that proselyte baptism was known as a Jewish rite anterior to the birth of Christ.

From the time of the Maccabees the desire to make proselytes prevailed among the Jews to a very great extent, especially on the part of the Pharisees, whose intemperate zeal for this object our Lord pointedly rebuked (Mat 23:15). The greater part of their converts were females, which has been ascribed to the dislike of the males to submit to circumcision. Josephus tells us that the Jews at Antioch were continually converting great numbers of the Greeks, and that nearly all the women at Damascus were attached to Judaism.

In the Jewish sense, a foreigner who adopted the Jewish religion, a convert from heathenism to Judaism. The laws of the Hebrews make frequent mention of "the stranger that is within thy gates," Lev 17:8-16 24:16 Num 15:14-16, and welcomed him to all the privileges of the people of God. Our Savior rebukes the blind zeal of the Pharisees to make proselytes to ceremonial Judaism, without caring for the circumcision of the heart, Mat 23:15 1Ch 2:28,29 .\par According to the later rabbins, there were two species of proselytes among the Jews. The first were called "proselytes of the gate," and were foreigners, either bond or free, who lived among the Jews and conformed to their customs in regard to what the rabbins call "the seven precepts of Noah;" that is, they abstained from injurious language in respect to God, from idolatry, homicide, incest, robbery, resistance to magistrates, and from eating blood, or the flesh of animals killed without shedding their blood. The other class were called "proselytes of justice;" that is, complete, perfect proselytes, and were those who had abandoned their former religion, and bound themselves to the observance of the Mosaic Law in its full extent.\par These according to the rabbins, by means of circumcision, baptism, and an offering, obtained all the rites of Jewish citizenship, Exo 12:48-49 . This distinction, however, is not observable in the Bible. Proselytes were numerous in our Savior’s day, and were found in many places remote from Jerusalem, Mal 2:10 8:27. Many converts to Christianity were gathered from among them, Joh 12:20 Mal 6:5 13:43 17:4.\par

Proselyte. (a stranger, a new comer). The name given, by the Jews, to foreigners who adopted the Jewish religion. The dispersion of the Jews in foreign countries, which has been spoken of elsewhere, See Dispersion of The Jews, The, enabled them to make many converts to their faith. The converts who were thus attracted joined, with varying strictness, in the worship of the Jews. In Palestine itself, even Roman centurions learned to love the conquered nation, and built synagogues for them, Luk 7:5, fasted and prayed, and gave alms after the pattern of the strictest Jews, Act 10:2; Act 10:30, and became preachers of the new faith to the soldiers under them. Act 10:7.

Such men, drawn by what was best in Judaism, were, naturally, among the readiest receivers of the new truth which rose out of it, and became, in many cases, the nucleus of a Gentile Church. Proselytism had, however, its darker side. The Jews of Palestine were eager to spread their faith, by the same weapons as those with which they had defended it.

The Idumaeans had the alternative offered them by John Hyrcanus of death, exile or circumcision. The Idumeans were converted in the same way, by Aristobulus. Where force was not in their power, they obtained their ends, by the most unscrupulous fraud. Those who were most active in proselytizing were precisely those from whose teaching all that was most true and living had departed.

The vices of the Jew were engrafted on the vices of the heathen. A repulsive casuistry released the convert from obligations, which he had before recognized, while, in other things, he was bound hand and foot to an unhealthy superstition. It was no wonder that he became, "twofold more the child of hell," Mat 23:15, than the Pharisees themselves. We find, in the Talmud, a distinction between proselytes of the gate, and proselytes of righteousness.

The term, "proselytes of the gate", was derived from the frequently occurring description in the law of the stranger that is within, Exo 20:10; etc. "Converts of thy gates"; this class were not bound by circumcision, and the other special laws of the Mosaic code. It is doubtful, however, whether the distinction made in the Talmud ever really existed.

The "proselytes of righteousness", known also as "proselytes of the covenant", were perfect Israelites. We learn from the Talmud that, in addition to circumcision, baptism was also required to complete their admission to the faith. The proselyte was placed in a tank or pool up to his neck in water. His teachers, who now acted as his sponsors, repeated the great commandments of the law. The baptism was followed as long as the Temple stood, by the offering of corban.

Proselyte, a stranger, sojourner. In the later Jewish sense this term designates a convert from Paganism to Judaism. Mat 23:15; Act 2:11; Act 6:5; Act 13:43. The Rabbins distinguish two kinds of proselytes. 1. Perfect proselytes, who, submitting to circumcision, embraced the Jewish religion in its full extent, and enjoyed all the rights and privileges of Jewish citizenship. Exo 12:48; Exo 20:10; Josephus Ant. xx. 2. 4. 2. Proselytes of the gate, i.e., foreigners, dwelling among the Jews, who, without being circumcised, conformed to certain Jewish laws and customs. Proselytes were found in great numbers, not only in Judea, but in all the principal cities of the empire. Act 13:43; Act 16:14; Act 17:4; Act 17:17; Act 18:7.

The name given to any from among the nations who embraced Judaism. Act 2:10; Act 6:5; Act 13:43. The name may be said to be a Greek word, derived from ’to come to.’ It is used by the LXX where the Hebrew has ’the stranger’ that sojourneth among you. Exo 12:48-49; Lev 17:8; Lev 17:10; Lev 17:12-15; Num 9:14; etc. Such, if all the males in the family were circumcised, might eat the Passover and offer a burnt offering or sacrifice. The Rabbis say that there were two classes of proselytes.

1. ’Proselytes of righteousness,’ such as those mentioned above; and

2. ’Proselytes of the Gate,’ those spoken of as ’strangers within thy gates.’

The Rabbis also assert that in N.T. times and later the proselytes were received by circumcision and baptism; but it is very much disputed as to when the baptism was added, there being no mention of it in the O.T. Some hold that it was introduced when the emperors forbade their Gentile subjects to be circumcised, but others think it must have been earlier, which seems confirmed by Joh 1:25.

History shows to what an extent proselytising was abused. The Jews held that on a Gentile becoming a proselyte, all his natural relationships were annulled: he was ’a new creature.’ Many became proselytes in order to abandon their wives and marry again. This, with other abuses, caused the emperors to interfere; the stricter Jews also were scandalized, and repudiated such proselytes. The Lord describes such a proselyte as the Scribes and Pharisees would make, as "twofold more the child of hell" than themselves. Mat 23:15.

PROSELYTE

1. Derivation of the name.—προσήλυτος (from προσέρχομαι) means lit. ‘one who has arrived at a place,’ hence ‘a stranger,’ ‘a sojourner.’ In the LXX Septuagint it is frequently used as the equivalent of the Heb. נֵּר (see Expos. iv. x. [1894] p. 264). By NT times it had acquired the technical meaning of ‘one who was a convert to Judaism from heathendom,’ without any indication of place of residence being involved. This special meaning had also been gradually acquired by נֵּר (see W. R. Smith, OTJC [Note: TJC The Old Test, in the Jewish Church] ^{2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} p. 342 n. [Note: note.] ; also Oxford Heb. Lex. s.v. נֵּר), and also by the Aramaic נִּיוֹרָא (LXX Septuagint γειώρας).

2. Classes of proselytes.—In the time of Christ many foreigners had fully embraced Judaism, and were called ‘proselytes’; there were also others, far more numerous, who had partially adopted Jewish doctrines and customs. The latter are indicated in the NT by σεβόμενοι (Act 13:43; Act 16:14; Act 17:4; Act 17:17; Act 18:7) and φοβούμενοι [τὸν θεόν] (Act 10:2, Act 13:16; Act 13:26). These words indicate that they reverenced Israel’s God and in part obeyed the Law, but had not fully entered into the fellowship of Israel. These divisions correspond to those of the Mishna, where נֵּר is a fully admitted proselyte, and the term נֵּר תּוֹשָׁב (lit. a resident alien) is applied to those who were more loosely attached to the Jewish worship. Later Rabbis expressed the same distinction by the phrases ‘proselyte of Righteousness’ (נֵּר הַצֶּדָק), as contrasted with ‘proselyte of the Gate’ (נֵּר הַשַּׁעַר).

(a) Proselytes properly so called (NT προσήλυτος; Mishna נֵּר; Rabbinic name נֵּר הַצֶּדֶק). These were heathen by birth, who had been admitted to full fellowship in Jewish worship. Three observances were required for their admission: (1) Circumcision. (2) Baptism, which was analogous to the ceremonial purifications so frequently required of the Jews (Schürer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] ii. ii. 321; also Edersheim, LT [Note: T Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Edersheim].] ii. 745). Some have maintained that the baptism of proselytes did not originate so early as the time of Christ, but the Mishna incidentally refers to it as if it had been long in use. (3) The offering of a sacrifice, by which atonement was made for the sins of the proselyte. Those thus admitted undertook to observe the whole Law (cf. Gal 5:3), and they were granted privileges almost equal to those of an Israelite. Such are referred to in Mat 23:15, Joh 12:20, Act 2:10; Act 6:5; Act 13:43.

(b) Those denominated in the NT σεβόμενοι or φοβούμενοι (Mishna נֵּר תּוֹשָׁב; by the Rabbis נֵּר הַשָׁעֵר). The Talmud represents these as keeping what were denominated ‘the seven precepts of Noah’—comprising the duties which were considered incumbent upon all men, even outside Israel (Aboda Zara, 64b). These precepts were: (1) obedience to those in authority; (2) reverence to the name of God; (3) abstinence from idolatry, (4) from fornication, (5) from stealing, (6) from murder, (7) from flesh with the blood in it (Sanh. 56b). [The decision respecting the obligations incumbent upon Gentile converts (Act 15:29) shows some agreement with these precepts].

Since נֵּר תּוֹשָׁב means one permanently dwelling in the country of Israel, the Talmud involves that all who were allowed to dwell in Palestine were required to keep the precepts of Noah; but this was never actually enforced—it was theoretical only.

Persons who, without becoming full ‘proselytes of Righteousness,’ inclined to a greater or less extent towards Jewish doctrines and practices are referred to in the NT, Mat 8:5-13, Luk 7:1-10, Act 10:2; Act 13:16; Act 13:26; Act 13:43; Act 13:50; Act 16:14; Act 17:4; Act 17:17; Act 18:7.

3. Proselytizing in the time of Christ.—The religious restlessness of heathenism, which favoured the introduction of Oriental creeds into the West, afforded an opportunity for Jewish proselytizing. The moral earnestness and monotheism of Judaism commended it to those who, having lost faith in heathen deities, were seeking a more rational and ethical creed. The Greek-speaking Jews, who were to be found in all the great cities of the Roman Empire, carried the Knowledge of the Mosaic Law into the midst of heathendom, and presented their faith in a form calculated to win the approval of their neighbours. This accommodation to their surroundings in the way of representing their creed was partly unconscious, through their contact with Gentile thought, and partly an intentional emphasizing of the moral side of Judaism, while merely national and ceremonial features which might repel inquirers were minimized (Schürer, ii. ii. 297). Hence, in spite of the scorn which Roman writers heaped upon the Jews (Tac. Hist. v. 2–8; Juv. Sat. vi. and xiv.; Cic. pro Flacco, 28), numerous adherents were gained, who either fully or partially accepted Judaism (Josephus c. [Note: circa, about.] Apion. ii. 40, Ant. xx. ii. 3). Many of these converts were women (Josephus BJ ii. xx. 2; also Act 13:50; Act 16:14; Act 17:4).

From these proselytes a very considerable revenue was received by the Temple authorities (Josephus Ant. xiv. vii. 2). This pecuniary advantage from the spread of Judaism stimulated activity in proselytizing, such as that noticed by Christ in Mat 23:15. Some Jews fraudulently enriched themselves from the gifts of proselytes (Josephus Ant. xviii. iii. 5). Such unworthy motives for proselytizing were condemned by Jesus (Mat 23:15).

Illustrations of the fanatical zeal of the Jews in making proselytes are found in Josephus Life, 23, Ant. xiii. ix. 1, xi. 3, xv. 4, xx. ii. 1, BJ ii. xvi. 10, XVII. x.

The account of the Acts shows that proselytes often became converts to Christianity, and this was an important factor in the establishment of the Gentile Christian Church. The struggle between St. Paul and the Judaizers (Acts 15 and Ep. to Galatians) was an attempt on the part of Christian Pharisees to compel Gentile Christians to become ‘proselytes of Righteousness.’

4. Moral quality of Jewish proselytes.—Proselytes who had accepted Judaism from pure motives must have been men of high character; nevertheless proselytes are spoken of slightingly by the Talmud. Thus we read (Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Middah, fol. 13. 2): ‘Proselytes and sodomites hinder the coming of the Messiah.’ This is explained to mean that proselytes often erred through ignorance of the Law. We can readily imagine that insistence upon the minutiae of Pharisaic tradition (cf. Mat 23:4) would tend to produce a debased character such as is charged against some in Mat 23:15. Edersheim, however, suggests (LT [Note: T Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Edersheim].] ii. 412) that the word ‘proselyte’ in this passage may signify the winning of a convert to Pharisaism, rather than a convert from heathendom to Judaism.

5. Christ’s relations with proselytes.—Although the number of proselytes in Palestine must have been very great, references to them in the Gospels are few. We find: (1) The centurion (Mat 8:5-13, Luk 7:1-10), who was an officer in the army of Herod Antipas. There is no reason to think of him as a ‘proselyte of Righteousness,’ for in that case (a) he need have had no hesitation in asking Jesus to go to his house, and (b) the words of Jesus (Mat 8:11) would not be so suitable. But from the fact that he had built a synagogue (Luk 7:5), he was clearly one of the wider class of adherents to Judaism, called in later days ‘proselytes of the Gate’ (see Edersheim, LT [Note: T Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Edersheim].] i. 546).—(2) The Greeks (Joh 12:20). From the fact that these came to attend the Feast, they would appear to have been ‘proselytes of Righteousness.’ (Geikie, however, Life of Christ, ii. 434, considers that they were ‘proselytes of the Gate’).—(3) On Mat 23:15 see preceding paragraphs on ‘Proselytizing’ and ‘Moral quality.’—(4) Pilate’s wife (Mat 27:19). Tradition (earliest recorded in the Gospel of Nicodemus, ch. 2) asserts that Pilate’s wife was a ‘proselyte of the Gate.’ Origen says that she became a Christian.

Literature.—Selden, de Jure Nat.et Gent., Lib. ii.; Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud. et Rabbin. 8.v. נֶּר; Schürer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] ii. ii. 291–327; Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, ii. 1–24; Hausrath, NT Times: Time of Apostles, i. 123; Allen In Expos. 4th ser. x. (1894) 264; art. ‘Proselyte’ in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible and in EBi [Note: Bi Encyclopaedia Biblica.] .

F. E. Robinson.

(προσέλυτος, from προσέρχεσθαι):

By: Joseph Jacobs, Emil G. Hirsch

The "Ger."

Term employed generally, though not exclusively, in the Septuagint as a rendering for the Hebrew word "ger," designating a convert from one religion to another. The original meaning of the Hebrew is involved in some doubt. Modern interpreters hold it to have connoted, at first, a stranger (or a "client," in the technical sense of the word) residing in Palestine, who had put himself under the protection of the people (or of one of them) among whom he had taken up his abode. In later, post-exilic usage it denotes a convert to the Jewish religion. In the Septuagint and the New Testament the Greek equivalent has almost invariably the latter signification (but see Geiger, "Urschrift," pp. 353 et seq.), though in the Septuagint the word implies also residence in Palestine on the part of one who had previously resided elsewhere, an implication entirely lost both in the Talmudical "ger" and in the New Testament προσέλύτος. Philo applies the latter term in the wider sense of "one having come to a new and God-pleasing life" ("Duo de Monarchia," i. 7), but uses another word to express the idea of "convert"—ήπηλυτος. Josephus, though referring to converts to Judaism, does not use the term, interpreting the Biblical passages in which "ger" occurs as applying to the poor or the foreigner.

Whatever may have been the original implication of the Hebrew word, it is certain that Biblical authors refer to proselytes, though describing them in paraphrases. Ex. xii. 48 provides for the proselyte's partaking of the paschal lamb, referring to him as a "ger" that is "circumcised." Isa. xiv. 1 mentions converts as "strangers" who shall "cleave to the house of Jacob" (but comp. next verse). Deut. xxiii. 8 (Hebr.) speaks of "one who enters into the assembly of Jacob," and (Deutero-) Isa. lvi. 3-6 enlarges on the attitude of those that joined themselves to Yhwh, "to minister to Him and love His name, to be His servant, keeping the Sabbath from profaning it, and laying hold on His covenant." "Nokri" (ξένος ="stranger") is another equivalent for "proselyte," meaning one who, like Ruth, seeks refuge under the wings of Yhwh (Ruth ii. 11-12; comp. Isa. ii. 2-4, xliv. 5; Jer. iii. 17, iv. 2, xii. 16; Zeph. iii. 9; I Kings viii. 41-43; Ruth i. 16). Probably in almost all these passages "converts" are assumed to be residents of Palestine. They are thus "gerim," but circumcised. In the Priestly Code "ger" would seem to have this meaning throughout. In Esther viii. 17 alone the expression "mityahadim" (= "became Jews") occurs.

According to Philo, a proselyte is one who abandons polytheism and adopts the worship of the One God ("De Pœnitentia," § 2; "De Caritate," § 12). Josephus describes the convert as one who adopts the Jewish customs, following the laws of the Jews and worshiping God as they do—one who has become a Jew ("Ant." xx. 2, §§ 1, 4; comp. xviii. 3, § 5; for another description see the Apocalypse of Baruch, xli. 3, 4; xlii. 5). By many scholars the opinion is held that the phrase "yir'e Adonai" denotes either proselytes in general or a certain class ("ger toshab"; see below). This interpretation is that of the Midrash (Lev. R. iii.; Shoḥer Ṭob to Ps. xxii. 22). While this construction is borne out by some passages (Ps. cxv. 11-13, cxviii. 4, cxxxv. 20), in others the reference is clearly to native Israelites (Ps. xv. 4, xxii. 23-25, xxv. 12-14, et al.). For the value of the term in the New Testament (in the Acts) see Bertholet, "Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden" (pp. 328-334), and O. Holtzmann, "Neutestamentliche Zeitgesch." (p. 185). According to Schürer ("Die Juden im Bosporanischen Reiche," in "Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie," 1897), the phrase "those who fear the Most High God" designates associations of Greeks in the first post-Christian centuries, who had taken their name and their monotheistic faith from the Jews, but still retained many of the elements of Greek life and religion (see Jacob Bernays, "Die Gottesfürchtigen bei Juvenal," in his "Gesammelte Schriften," ii. 71-80).

Historic Conditions.

The attitude of ancient Israel to proselytes and proselytism is indicated in the history of the term "ger" as sketched above, which, again, reflects the progressive changes incidental to the development of Israel from a nation into a religious congregation under the priestly law. (For the position of strangers see Gentile.) Ezra's policy, founded on the belief that the new common wealth should be of the holy seed, naturally led to the exclusion of those of foreign origin. Still, the non-Israelite could gain admittance through circumcision (see Ex. xii.).

Pre-exilic Israel had but little reason to seek proselytes or concern itself with their status and reception. The "strangers" in its midst were not many (II Chron. ii. 16 is certainly unhistorical). As "clients," they were under the protection of the community. Such laws as refer to them in pre-exilic legislation, especially if compared with the legislativeprovisions of other nations, may justly be said to be humane (see Deuteronomy; Gentile). That the aboriginal population was looked upon with suspicion was due to their constituting a constant peril to the monotheistic religion. Hence the cruel provisions for their extermination, which, however, were not carried into effect.

During the Exile Israel came in contact with non-Israelites in a new and more intimate degree, and Deutero-Isaiah reflects the consequent change in Israel's attitude (see passages quoted above). Even after the restoration Ezra's position was not without its opponents. The books of Jonah and Ruth testify to the views held by the anti-Ezra pleaders for a non-racial and all-embracing Israel. Not only did Greek Judaism tolerate the reception of proselytes, but it even seems to have been active in its desire for the spread of Jewish monotheism (comp. Schürer, l.c.). Philo's references to proselytes make this sure (comp. Renan, "Le Judaïsme en Fait de Religion et de Race").

According to Josephus there prevailed in his day among the inhabitants of both Greek and barbarian cities ("Contra Ap." ii., § 39) a great zeal for the Jewish religion. This statement refers to Emperor Domitian's last years, two decades after Jerusalem's fall. It shows that throughout the Roman empire Judaism had made inroads upon the pagan religions. Latin writers furnish evidence corroborating this. It is true that Tacitus ("Hist." iv. 5) is anxious to convey the impression that only the most despicable elements of the population were found among these converts to Judaism; but this is amply refuted by other Roman historians, as Dio Cassius (67, 14, 68), Cicero ("Pro Flacco," § 28), Horace ("Satires," i. 9, 69; iv. 142), and Juvenal (xiv. 96).

Roman Proselytes.

Among converts of note are mentioned the royal family of Adiabene—Queen Helena and her sons Izates and Monobazus ("Ant." xx., ch. 2-4), Flavius Clemens (Dio Cassius, l.c.), Fulvia, the wife of Saturninus, a senator (Philo, "Contra Flaccum," ed. Mangey, ii., § 517; "Ant." xiii. 9, § 1; 11, § 3). Women seem to have predominated among them (Josephus, "B. J." ii. 20, § 2; "Ant." xviii. 3, § 5; Suk. 23; Yer. Suk. ii. 4; 'Ab. Zarah 10; comp. Grätz, "Die Jüdischen Proselyten im Römerreiche," Breslau, 1884; Huidekoper, "Judaism in Rome").

In Palestine, too, proselytes must have been both numerically and socially of importance. Otherwise the Tannaim would have had no justification for discussing their status and the conditions of their reception. Common prejudice imputes to Phariseeism an aversion to proselytes, but perhaps this idea calls for modification. That aversion, if it existed, may have been due to the part taken in Jewish history by Herod, a descendant of the Idumeans whom John Hyrcanus had compelled to embrace Judaism—a fate shared later by the Itureans ("Ant." xiii. 9, § 1; xv. 7, § 9; comp. xiii. 9, § 3). The "proselyte anecdotes" in which Hillel and Shammai have a central part (Shab. 31a) certainly suggest that the antipathy to proselytes was not shared by all, while R. Simeon's dictum that the hand of welcome should be extended to the proselyte (Lev. R. ii. 8), that he might be brought under the wings of the Shekinah, indicates a disposition quite the reverse. In this connection the censure of the Pharisees in Matt. xxv. 15 is significant. Grätz (l.c. p. 30), it is true, argues that the verse refers to an actual incident, the voyage of R. Gamaliel, R. Eliezer b. Azariah, R. Joshua, and R. Akiba to Rome, where they converted Flavius Clemens, a nephew of Emperor Domitian. But the more acceptable interpretation is that given by Jellinek ("B. H." v., p. xlvi.), according to which the passionate outburst recorded in the Gospel of Matthew condemns the Pharisaic practise of winning over every year at least one proselyte each (comp. Gen. R. xxviii.). There is good ground also for the contention of Grätz (l.c. p. 33) that immediately after the destruction of the Second Temple Judaism made many conquests, especially among Romans of the upper classes. Among the proselytes of this time a certain Judah, an Ammonite, is mentioned. Contrary to the Biblical law prohibiting marriage between Jews and Ammonites, he is allowed to marry a Jewess, the decision being brought about largely by Joshua's influence (Yad. iv. 4; Tosef., Yad. ii. 7; comp. Ber. 28a).

Other cases in which Biblical marriage-prohibitions were set aside were those of Menyamin, an Egyptian (on the authority of R. Akiba; Tosef., Ḳid. v. 5; Yer. Yeb. 9b; Sifre, Ki Tissa, 253; Yeb. 76b, 78a; Soṭah 9a), Onḳelos, or Akylas (Aquila), from Pontus (Tosef., Dem. vi. 13; Yer. Dem. 26d), Veturia Paulla, called Sarah after her conversion (see Schürer, "Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom," p. 35, No. 11, Leipsic, 1879).

At this epoch, too, the necessity for determining the status of the "half-converts" grew imperative. By "half-converts" is meant a class of men and women of non-Jewish birth who, forsaking their ancestral pagan and polytheistic religions, embraced monotheism and adopted the fundamental principles of Jewish morality, without, however, submitting to circumcision or observing other ceremonial laws. They have been identified with the "yir'e Adonai" (the ρηβόμενοι τὸυ Θεόυ). Their number was very large during the centuries immediately preceding and following the fall of Jerusalem; Ps. xv. has been interpreted as referring to them.

Semi-Converts.

In order to find a precedent the Rabbis went so far as to assume that proselytes of this order were recognized in Biblical law, applying to them the term "toshab" ("sojourner," "aborigine," referring to the Canaanites; see Maimonides' explanation in "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 7; see Grätz, l.c. p. 15), in connection with "ger" (see Ex. xxv. 47, where the better reading would be "we-toshab"). Another name for one of this class was "proselyte of the gate" ("ger ha-sha'ar," that is, one under Jewish civil jurisdiction; comp. Deut. v. 14, xiv. 21, referring to the stranger who had legal claims upon the generosity and protection of his Jewish neighbors). In order to be recognized as one of these the neophyte had publicly to assume, before three "ḥaberim," or men of authority, the solemn obligation not to worship idols, an obligation which involved the recognition of the seven Noachian injunctions as binding ('Ab. Zarah 64b; "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 7).

The application to half-converts of all the laws obligatory upon the sons of Jacob, including those that refer to the taking of interest, or to retaining their hire overnight, or to drinking wine made by non-Jews, seems to have led to discussion and dissension among the rabbinical authorities.

The more rigorous seem to have been inclined to insist upon such converts observing the entire Law, with the exception of the reservations and modifications explicitly made in their behalf. The more lenient were ready to accord them full equality with Jews as soon as they had solemnly forsworn idolatry. The "via media" was taken by those that regarded public adherence to the seven Noachian precepts as the indispensable prerequisite (Gerim iii.; 'Ab. Zarah 64b; Yer. Yeb. 8d; Grätz, l.c. pp. 19-20). The outward sign of this adherence to Judaism was the observance of the Sabbath (Grätz, l.c. pp. 20 et seq.; but comp. Ker. 8b).

Influence of Christianity.

The recognition of these quasi-proselytes rendered it obligatory upon the Jews to treat them as brothers (see 'Ab. Zarah 65a; Pes. 21a). But by the third century the steady growth of Christianity had caused these qualified conversions to Judaism to be regarded with increasing disfavor. According to Simeon b. Eleazar, this form of adoption into Judaism was valid only when the institution of the jubilee also was observed, that is, according to the common understanding of his dictum, during the national existence of Israel ('Ar. 29a). A similar observation of Maimonides ("Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 7-8; ib. 'Akkum, x. 6) is construed in the same sense. It seems more probable that Maimonides and Simeon ben Eleazar wished to convey the idea that, for their day, the institution of the ger toshab was without practical warrant in the Torah. R. Johanan declares that if after a probation of twelve months the ger toshab did not submit to the rite of circumcision, he was to be regarded as a heathen ('Ab. Zarah 65a; the same period of probation is fixed by Ḥanina bar Ḥama in Yer. Yeb. 8d).

In contradistinction to the ger toshab, the full proselyte was designated as "ger ha-ẓedeḳ," "ger ha-berit" (a sincere and righteous proselyte, one who has submitted to circumcision; see Mek., Mishpaṭim, 18; Gerim iii.). The common, technical term for "making a convert" in rabbinical literature is "ḳabbel" (to accept), or "ḳareb taḥat kanfe ha-Shekinah" (to bring one near, or under the wings of, the Shekinah). This phrase plainly presupposes an active propaganda for winning converts (comp. Cant. R. v. 16, where God is referred to as making propagandic efforts). In fact, that proselytes are welcome in Israel and are beloved of God is the theme of many a rabbinical homily (Ruth R. iii.; Tan., Wayiḳra [ed. Buber, 3]; see also Mek., Mishpaṭim, 18; Tosef., Demai, ii. 10; Bek. 32a).

Views Concerning Proselytes.

Eleazar b. Pedat sees in Israel's dispersion the divine purpose of winning proselytes (Pes. 87b). Jethro is the classical witness to the argument of other proselytes that the "door was not shut in the face of the heathen" (Pesiḳ. R. 35). He is introduced as writing a letter to Moses (Mek., Yitro, 'Amaleḳ, 1) advising him to make the entry into Judaism easy for proselytes. Ruth and Rahab are quoted as illustrating the same lesson (Shoḥer Ṭob to Ps. v. 11). Emperor Antoninus also is mentioned as a proselyte (Yer. Meg. 72b, 74a) whose conversion illustrates the desirability of making converts. The circumstance that Nero (Giṭ. 56a), and, in fact, most of the Biblical persecutors of Israel, are represented as having finally embraced Judaism (Sanh. 96b), the further fact that almost every great Biblical hero is regarded as an active propagandist, and that great teachers like Shemaiah and Abtalion, Akiba and Meïr, were proselytes, or were regarded as proselytes or as descendants of proselytes (see Bacher, "Ag. Tan." i. 5-6), go far to suggest that proselytes were not always looked upon with suspicion. According to Joshua ben Hananiah, "food" and "raiment" in Deut. x. 18 refer to the learning and the cloak of honor which are in store for the proselyte (Gen. R. lxx.). Job xxxi. 32 was explained as inculcating the practise of holding off applicants with the left hand while drawing them near with the right (Yer. Sanh. 29b). Modern researches have shown positively that Judaism sent forth apostles. Jethro was a type of these propagandists (see Bacher, "Ag. Tan." i. 210; Harnack, "Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums," pp. 237-240, Leipsic, 1902; Grätz, "Gesch." 3d ed., vol. iv., note 21; S. Krauss, "Die Jüdischen Apostel," in "J. Q. R." xvii. 370).

Sincerity of motive in the proselyte wits insisted upon. Care was taken to exclude those who were prompted to embrace Judaism by the desire to contract an advantageous marriage, by the hope of wealth or honor, by fear or superstitious dreams (R. Nehemiah, in Yeb. 24b; comp. 76a). The midrashic amplification of the conversation between Naomi and Ruth (Ruth R. i. 16; Yeb. 47b) reveals the kind of conduct the Rabbis dreaded in proselytes and what admonitions, with the penalties for disregarding them, they thought wise to impress upon the candidates. Attendance at theaters and circuses, living in houses without mezuzot, and unchastity were among the former. The same spirit of caution is apparent in a midrashic illustration to the story of Adam and Eve, in which the proselyte wife is warned by her husband against eating bread with unclean hands, partaking of untithed fruit, or violating the Sabbath or her marriage vow (Ab. R. N. i.). From Ruth's experience the rule was derived that proselytes must be refused reception three times, but not oftener (Ruth R. ii.).

Mode of Reception.

The details of the act of reception seem not to have been settled definitely before the second Christian century. From the law that proselyte and native Israelite should be treated alike (Num. xv. 14 et seq.) the inference was drawn that circumcision, the bath of purification, and sacrifice were prerequisites for conversion (comp. "Yad," Issure Biah, xiii. 4). The sacrifice was to be an "'olat behemah" (a burnt offering of cattle; ib. xiii. 5; Ker. ii. 1; 8b, 9a); but to lessen the hardship an offering of fowls was accepted as sufficient. Neglect to bring this offering entailed certain restrictions, but did not invalidate the conversion if the other conditions werecomplied with. After the destruction of the Temple, when all sacrifices were suspended, it was ordained that proselytes should set aside a small coin in lieu of the offering, so that in case the Temple were rebuilt they might at once purchase the offering. Later, when the prospect of the rebuilding of the Temple grew very remote ("mi-pene ha-taḳḳalah"), even this requirement was dropped (comp. Ker. 8a; R. H. 31b; Gerim ii.; Tosef., Sheḳalim, iii. 22).

Nor was it, at one time, the unanimous opinion of the authorities that circumcision was absolutely indispensable. R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus carried on a controversy on this subject with R. Joshua, the latter pleading for the possibility of omitting the rite, the former insisting on its performance (Yeb. 46a). The point seems to have remained unsettled for the time (see Grätz, "Die Jüdischen Proselyten," p. 13). For Rabbi Joshua the "ṭebilah" (bath of purification) was sufficient, while his antagonist required both circumcision and bath.

The bitterness engendered by the Hadrianic persecution undoubtedly prompted the Rabbis to make conversion as difficult as possible. It is more than a mere supposition that both at that period and earlier Jews suffered considerably from the cowardice and treachery of proselytes, who often acted as spies or, to escape the "fiscus Judaicus" (see Grätz, l.c. pp. 7 et seq.), denounced the Jews to the Romans. An instance of this kind is reported in connection with Simeon ben Yoḥai's sufferings (Shab. 33b). This circumstance explains the reasons that led to the introduction into the daily liturgy of a prayer against the "denunciators and slanderers" ("mesorot," "minim"; see Joël, "Blicke in die Religionsgesch." i. 33). Yet the true proselytes were all the more highly esteemed; a benediction in their behalf was added to the eighteen of the Shemoneh 'Esreh, and later was incorporated with that for the elders and pious (Tosef., Ber. iii.; Yer. Ber. 8a; Ta'an. 85c; comp. Grätz, l.c. p. 11).

Influence of the Hadrianic Persecution.

After the Hadrianic rebellion the following procedure came into use. A complete "court," or "board," of rabbinical authorities was alone made competent to sanction the reception. The candidate was first solemnly admonished to consider the worldly disadvantages and the religious burdens involved in the intended step. He, or she, was asked, "What induces thee to join us? Dost thou not know that, in these days, the Israelites are in trouble, oppressed, despised, and subjected to endless sufferings?" If he replied, "I know it, and I am unworthy to share their glorious lot," he was reminded most impressively that while a heathen he was liable to no penalties for eating fat or desecrating the Sabbath, or for similar trespasses, but as soon as he became a Jew, he must suffer excision for the former, and death by stoning for the latter. On the other hand, the rewards in store for the faithful were also explained to him. If the applicant remained firm, he was circumcised in the presence of three rabbis, and then led to be baptized; but even while in the bath he was instructed by learned teachers in the graver and the lighter obligations which he was undertaking. After this he was considered a Jew (Yeb. 47a, b). The presence of three men was required also at the bath of women converts, though due precautions were taken not to affront their modesty. This procedure is obligatory at the present time, according to the rabbinical codes (see Shulḥan 'Aruk, Yoreh De'ah, 268; "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv.). The ceremony should be performed by a properly constituted board of three learned men, and in the daytime; but if only two were present and the ceremony took place at night, it would not therefore be invalid. The ceremony of conversion could not take place on the Sabbath or on a holy day (ib.). Proper evidence of conversion was required before the claimant was recognized as a proselyte, though to a certain extent piety of conduct was a presumption in his favor. If the convert reverted to his former ways of living, he was regarded as a rebellious Israelite, not as a heathen; his marriage with a Jewess, for instance, was not invalidated by his lapses. The conversion of a pregnant woman included also the child. Minors could be converted with their parents, or even alone, by the bet din, but they were permitted to recant when of age.

Unfavorable View.

The proselyte is regarded as a new-born child; hence his former family connections are considered as ended, and he might legally marry his own mother or sister; but lest he come to the conclusion that his new status is less holy than his former, such unions are prohibited (see Shulḥan 'Aruk, Yoreh De'ah, 269; "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 13). This conception of the proselyte's new birth (Yeb. 62a; Yer. Yeb. 4a) and of his new status with reference to his old family is the subject of many a halakie discussion (Yeb. xi. 2; Yer. Yeb. l.c.; et al.) and has led to certain regulations concerning marriages contracted either before or after conversion ("Yad," l.c. xiv. 13 et seq.; with reference to the first-fruit offering see Yer. Bik. 64a; Tosef., Bik. i. 2). That many of the earlier rabbis were opposed to proselytes is plain from observations imputed to them. R. Eliezer is credited with the opinion that the nature of proselytes is corrupt, and that hence they are apt to become backsliders (Mek., Mishpaṭim, 18; B. Ḳ. 59b; Gerim iv.). Jose ben Judah insists that any candidate should be rejected unless he binds himself to observe not only every tittle of the Torah but all the precepts of the scribes, even to the least of them (Tosef., Dem. ii. 5; Sifra 91a, to Lev. xix. 34).

Sad experience or personal fanaticism underlies the oft-cited statement—in reality a play upon Isa. xiv. 1—that proselytes are as burdensome to Israel as leprosy (Yeb. 47b, 109b; Ḳid. 70b; 'Ab. Zarah 3b; Ket. 11a; Niddah 13b); or the dictum that proselytes will not be received during the days of the Messiah ("Yad," Issure Biah, xiii.-xiv.; ib. 'Abadim, ix.; Yoreh De'ah, 268). While evil upon evil is predicted for the "meḳabbele gerim" (propagandists; Yeb. 109b), the proselytes themselves, notwithstanding their new birth, are said to be exposed to intense suffering, which is variously explained as due to their ignorance of the Law (Yeb. 48b), or to the presence of an impure motive in their conversion (e.g., fear instead of love), or to previous misconduct (Yeb. 68b). Nevertheless, once received, theywere to be treated as the peers of the Jew by birth.

According to R. Simeon b. Laḳish, proselytes are more precious at Sinai than Israel was, for the latter would not have taken the "kingdom" upon himself had not miracles accompanied revelation, while the former assume the "kingdom" without having seen even one miracle. Hence an injury to a proselyte is tantamount to an injury to God (Tan., Lek Leka, beginning; Ḥag. 5a). The proselyte might marry without restriction ("Yad," Issure Biah, xii. 17). The descendants of Ammon, Moab, Egypt, and Edom formed an exception: the males of Ammon and Moab were excluded forever, though no restriction existed against marriage with their women. Descendants of Egyptians and Edomites of either sex were proscribed in the first and second generations; the third enjoyed full connubial rights. But these restrictions were assumed to have been rendered inoperative by Sennacherib's conquest, and therefore as having no authority in later times ("Yad," l.c. xii. 17-24).

Besides the proselytes already mentioned, all belonging to the Roman period, there are records of others later. Among these were the kings of the Jewish Himyarite empire; Arab tribes (before the 6th cent.); Dhu Nuwas; Ḥarith ibn 'Amr; the Kenites; Waraḳah ibn-Naufal; the Chazars. Many also must have come from the ranks of the Christians; this would be the natural inference from the prohibition of conversion to Judaism issued by the Councils of Orleans, repeating previous prohibitions by Emperor Constantine. The code of Alfonso X. made conversion to Judaism a capital crime (Graetz, "Hist." ii. 562; iii. 37, 595).

In Modern Times.

In modern times conversions to Judaism are not very numerous. Marriage is, in contravention of the rabbinical caution, in most instances the motive, and proselytes of the feminine sex predominate. In some of the new rituals formulas for the reception of proselytes are found—for instance, in Einhorn's "'Olat Tamid" (German ed.). Instruction in the Jewish religion precedes the ceremony, which, after circumcision and baptism, consists in a public confession of faith, in the main amounting to a repudiation of certain Christian dogmas, and concluding with the reciting of the Shema'. Some agitation occurred in American Jewry over the abrogation of circumcision in the case of an adult neophyte ("milat gerim"). I. M. Wise made such a proposition before the Rabbinical Conference at Philadelphia (Nov., 1869), but his subsequent attitude (see "The Israelite" and "Die Deborah," Dec., 1869, and Jan., 1870) on the question leaves it doubtful whether he was in earnest in making the proposition. Bernard Felsenthal ("Zur Proselytenfrage," Chicago, 1878) raised the question about ten years later, arguing in favor of the abrogation of the rite and quoting R. Joshua's opinion among others. The Central Conference of American Rabbis finally, at the suggestion of I. M. Wise, resolved not to insist on milat gerim, and devised regulations for the solemn reception of proselytes. I. S. Moses has proposed the establishment of congregations of semiproselytes, reviving, as it were, the institution of the ger toshab.

Female Proselytes.

Certain restrictions regulating the status of women proselytes are found in the Mishnah. Girls born before the conversion of their mothers were not regarded as entitled to the benefit of the provisions concerning a slanderous report as to virginity set forth in Deut. xxii. 13-21 (see Ket. iv. 3); and if found untrue to their marriage vows, their punishment was strangulation, not lapidation. Only such female proselytes as at conversion had not attained the age of three years and one day, and even they not in all cases, were treated, in the law regulating matrimony, as was the native Jewish woman (ib. i. 2, 4; iii. 1, 2). Proselytes were not allowed to become the wives of priests; daughters of proselytes, only in case one of the parents was a Jew by birth (Yeb. vi. 5; Ḳid. iv. 7; see Cohen). R. Jose objects to the requirement that one parent must be of Jewish birth (Ḳid. l.c.). On the other hand, proselytes could contract marriages with men who, according to Deut. xxii. 3, were barred from marrying Jewish women (Yeb. viii. 2). While a proselyte woman was deemed liable to the ordeal of jealousy described in Num. v. 11. ('Eduy. v. 6), the provisions of the Law regarding the collection of damages in the case of injury to pregnant women were construed as not applicable to her (B. Ḳ. v. 4, but consult Gemara; "R. E. J." xiii. 318).

In these passages the strict interpretation of the Pentateuchal texts, as restricted to Israel, prevails, and in a similar spirit, in the order of Precedence as laid down in Hor. iii. 8, only the manumitted slave is assigned inferior rank to the proselyte, the bastard and the "natin" taking precedence over him. On the other hand, it should not be overlooked that it was deemed sinful to remind a proselyte of his ancestors or to speak in disrespectful terms of them and their life (B. M. iv. 10).

Bibliography:

Hastings, Dict. Bible;

Hamburger, R. B. T.;

Grätz, Gesch.;

Kalisch, Bible Studies, vol. ii. (the Book of Jonah), London, 1878.

PROSELYTE

1. The character and the history of the proselyte.—The character and the history of the proselyte are somewhat obscured by the fact that the name ‘proselyte’ occurs only in the NT, and there in the final meaning of a convert to Judaism, as if he were a product of NT times alone. But the same Greek word that stands for ‘proselyte’ In the NT is very largely used in the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , where EV [Note: English Version.] has ‘stranger.’ Even the Hebrews themselves are described by the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] as ‘proselytes’ in Egypt (Exo 22:21; Exo 23:9, Lev 19:34, Deu 10:19). The ‘stranger’ of the OT becomes the ‘proselyte’ of the NT. For the history that lies behind the use of the word see art. Stranger. By the 4th cent. b.c. the ‘stranger’ had become a member of the Jewish Church—a proselyte in the technical sense (Bertholet, Stellung der Israeliten, p. 178).

Other expressions are used in the NT to indicate a more or less close sympathy with Jewish religious thought and life without implying absolute identity with and inclusion in Judaism. These are ‘fearers of God’ (phoboumenoi ton Theon, Act 10:2; Act 10:22; Act 13:16; Act 13:26; Act 13:50 etc.), and ‘worshippers of God’ (sebomenoi ton Theon, Act 16:14; Act 17:4; Act 17:17 etc.). They were such as were drawn from heathenism by the higher ideals and purer life of Judaism. They were dissatisfied with the religious teaching of their nation, and found in Judaism an Intellectual home and a religious power they sought in vain elsewhere. But a study of Act 10:11, esp. Act 11:3, shows that these were not proselytes; they refused to take the final step that carried them into Judaism—viz. circumcision (EGT [Note: Expositor’s Greek Testament.] vol. ii. p. 250 f.; Ramsay, Expositor, 1896, p. 200; Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, i. p. 11). They lived on the fringe of Judaism, and were, it seems (Luk 7:5, Act 10:2), often generous henefactors to the cause that had lifted them nearer to God and truth.

2. Proselytizing activity of the Jews.—Up to the time of the Exile and for some time after, the attitude of the Hebrews towards ‘strangers’ was passive: they did not invite their presence into their community, and did not encourage them to be sharers of their faith. But before the 3rd cent. b.c. a change of outlook and national purpose had taken place, which had converted them into active propagandists. There appear to have been three reasons for this change. (1) The Hebrews were no longer concentrated in one narrow land where a homogeneous life was followed, but were scattered over all parts of the civilized world, and found themselves in contact with peoples who were religiously far inferior to themselves, however otherwise they might be placed, and who excited, it may be, their disdain, but also their pity.—(2) Many of those in the Gentile world who were dissatisfied with the intellectual results and the religious conditions of their time saw in Judaism, as lived and taught before their eyes, something finer and nobler than they had found elsewhere; and were drawn to its practical teaching and life without committing themselves to the ritual that offended their sense of fitness and decency (cf. Harnack, op. cit. i. 10 f.).—(3) The Hebrews themselves seem to have responded to their opportunity with a quickened enthusiasm for humanity and a higher ideal of their national existence, in the providence of God, among the nations of the earth. It does not appear that the Hebrews have ever been so powerfully moved towards the peoples lying in darkness as in this time subsequent to the Exile (Harnack, op. cit. i. 11, 12). They were convinced of the claim of God to the homage of men everywhere, the universalism of their revelation of truth and duty, and their own fitness to bring the world to God. The needs of the world moved them powerfully, and the thoughts that found expression in such passages as Psa 33:8 (‘Let all the earth fear the Lord, let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him’) Psa 36:7-9, Psa 64:10, Psa 65:8 etc., filled them with a burning zeal to make the world their offering to God. (Bertholet, op. cit. p. 191 f.). Perhaps we may not be wrong in regarding the Septuagint as a product of, as it certainly was an aid to, this missionary effort.

This spiritual enthusiasm for God’s honour and man’s salvation continued till about the time of the Maccabees, when the tenderer springs of the Jewish spirit were dried up, and the sword became the instrument of national idealism, and whole cities and tribes were given the option of circumcision or exile, if not slaughter (1Ma 2:46; 1Ma 13:48; 1Ma 14:14; 1Ma 14:36; Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. XIII. ix. 1, xi. 3, xv. 4). Of course, this was a means that was not available outside their hereditary home. This propaganda went on till the 1st cent. of our era, when the dissatisfaction of the Jews with the Roman supremacy culminated in insurrection. In their conflict with Rome their numbers were greatly reduced by slaughter, and their power of religious expansion was checked by the decree of Hadrian, modified later by Antoninus, in forbidding circumcision. By this time, however, Judaism had won a large following in every town of size and importance (cf. Act 2:9-11; Jos. [Note: Josephus.] BJ VII. iii. 3, c. Apion. ii. 11, 40; Seneca, ap. August, de Civitate Dei, vi. 11; cf. ‘victi victorious leges dederunt’; Harnack, op. cit. i. 14; Schürer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] ii. ii. 304 ff.). But now bloodshed and persecution produced the twofold result of closing and steeling the heart of Judaism to the outside world, so that proselytes were no longer sought by the Jews, and the tenets and the practices of Judaism became crystallized and less amenable to Hellenistic influences, and so less fitted to win the Gentile spirit.

3. Admission of the proselyte.—The ritual conditions imposed on the proselyte on entering Judaism were three: (1) circumcision, (2) cleansing or baptism, (3) sacrifice. Baptism took place after the healing of the wound caused by circumcision. Some have sought to discover in it an imitation of Christian ritual. But there is no foundation for such a claim. Cleansing or baptism lay in the very nature of Judaism,—the heathen was unclean and so had to be cleansed by washing in water before admission into Judaism. Sacrifice was both an expression of thanksgiving and an individual participation in Jewish worship. With the fall of the Temple sacrifice lapsed, though at first it was made a burden on the proselyte to lay aside enough to pay for the sacrifice, should the Temple again be restored; but even this demand was in course of time allowed to lapse, as the prospect of restoration vanished. These three conditions seem of early origin, though we may not have specific reference to them till the 2nd cent. a.d.

Among individual Jewish teachers there was difference of opinion as to the necessity of circumcision and baptism, but all early usage seems to confirm their actual observance. It is true that Izates, king of Adiahene, for a time refrained from circumcision under the guidance of his first Jewish teacher, Ananias, but this counsel was given, not because it was at the time deemed unnecessary for a proselyte to be circumcised, but because circumcision might alienate the sympathies of his people from Izates and endanger his throne. And Ananias wisely laid greater stress upon the moral than upon the ritual side of conversion. All through the Dispersion we find the same disposition to conciliate the Gentiles who were willing to share in the Jewish faith in any measure, by relaxing the ritual demands. And we cannot withhold our appreciation of the action of the Jews, for they wisely discriminated between the real and the formal side of their religion. They never did anything, however, to lower or compromise the moral demands of their faith. They rigorously insisted on the recognition of God from all their proselytes with all His claims upon their service (Harnack, op. cit. i. 72). It does not appear that conversion enhanced the reputation of the proselytes; for although they could not but win the esteem of the finer minds of their nation by their higher moral life, yet they seemed to the people to display a type of daily life lacking in domestic reverence and civic and national patriotism (Tac. Hist. v. 5. 8; Juv. Sat. xiv. 103–4).

4. Place of the proselyte in the growth of the Christian Church.—Those proselytes who had embraced Judaism in its entirety seem to have accepted the attitude of the Jews generally towards Christianity. Most of them would oppose it, and those who accepted it would make the Law the necessary avenue to it, and so they acted rather as a hindrance than as a help to the progress of the gospel. If the experience of Justin be any indication of the general attitude of the proselytes to the Church, they must have deemed it a duty to their adopted faith to manifest a violence of speech and an aggressiveness of action unsurpassed by the Jews themselves; for he says, ‘the proselytes not only do not believe, but twofold more than yourselves blaspheme His name, and wish to torture and put to death us who believe in Him’ (Dial. 122).

But the proselytes must always have formed a very small minority of those amongst the Gentiles who had lent an ear to Jewish teaching. There were many who were attracted to the synagogue by the helpfulness of its worship and the purity of its teaching, who had no sympathy with its ritual. Amongst these the gospel had a different reception; it was readily accepted and eagerly followed. They found in it all that drew them to the synagogue, and a great deal more. With historical Judaism they had nothing to do, and loyalty and nationality did not appeal to them as motives to maintain it against Christianity. Amongst the Jews both the proselyte and the devout worshipper occupied an inferior place, but here was a faith that made no distinction between Jew or Gentile, a faith whose conception of God was tenderer and whose ethical standards were higher, that made love and not law the interpreter of duty and the inspiration of service, that lived not in an evening twilight of anticipation of a glorious Messianic morning, but in warm fellowship with a Personality that was the evidence of its power and truth. It is easy to understand how quickly the gospel would be adopted by these adherents of Judaism. Every synagogue would become the seed-plot of a Christian church. And so it was specially to these that St. Paul addressed himself on his missionary journeys, and from them he formed the beginnings of many of his churches and received so much kindness (Act 13:16; Act 13:42; Act 16:14; Act 16:16 etc.). One can easily understand with what feelings of combined jealousy and hate the Jews would see these worshippers detached from the synagogue and formed into a church. But Judaism had nothing to offer the Gentile that was not better provided by the Christian Church, and so it recoiled from the attack on Christianity like the spent waves from the rock-bound coast, angry but baffled. Failure drove the Jews in sullenness upon themselves. They left the field to Christianity, restricted their vision to their own people, and left the outer world alone.

J. Gilroy.

(Greek: proselytos, stranger, new-comer)

In Scripture, convert to the Jewish religion, some of them in full adhesion to the Jewish belief and ritual, others merely sympathetic with Judaism and in part co-worshipers; also a person induced to join a Church or sect, by unfair methods.

(proselytos, stranger or newcomer; Vulgate, advena).The English term "proselyte" occurs only in the New Testament where it signifies a convert to the Jewish religion (Matthew 23:15; Acts 2:11; 6:5; etc.), though the same Greek word is commonly used in the Septuagint to designate a foreign sojourner in Palestine. Thus the term seems to have passed from an original local and chiefly political sense, in which it was used as early as 300 B.C., to a technical and religious meaning in the Judaism of the New Testament epoch. Besides the proselytes in the strict sense who underwent the rite of circumcision and conformed to the precepts of the Jewish Law, there was another class often referred to in the Acts as "fearers of God" (Acts 10:2, 22; 13:16, 26), "worshippers of God" (Acts 16:14), "servers of God" (Acts 13:43; 17:4, 17). These were sympathetic adherents attracted by the Monotheism and higher ideals of the Jewish religion. St. Paul addressed himself especially to them in his missionary journeys, and from them he formed the beginning of many of his Churches.-----------------------------------JAMES F. DRISCOLL Transcribed by Sean Hyland The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIICopyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

pros´ḗ-lı̄t (προσήλυτος, prosḗlutos, from prosérchomai, “I approach”): Found 4 times in the New Testament. In the Septuagint it often occurs as the translation of גּר, gēr. The Hebrew verb gūr means “to sojourn”; gēr accordingly means a stranger who has come to settle in the land, as distinguished on the one hand from ’ezrāḥ, “a homeborn” or “native,” and on the other from nokhrı̄ or ben-nēkhār, which means a stranger who is only passing through the country. Yet it is to be noted that in 2Ch 2:17 those of the native tribes still living in the land as Amorites, Hittites, etc., are also called gērı̄m. In two places, (Exo 12:19; Isa 14:1) the Septuagint uses , g(e)iṓras, which is derived from gı̄yōr, the Aramaic equivalent for gēr. Septuagint uses pároikos (the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew tōshābh, “a settler”) for gēr when Israel or the triarchs are indicated (Gen 15:13; Gen 23:4; Exo 2:22; Exo 18:3; Deu 23:7; 1Ch 29:15; Psa 39:12; Psa 119:19; Jer 14:8), and in a few other cases. In Talmudical literature gēr always stands for proselyte in the New Testament sense, i.e. a Gentile who has been converted to Judaism. Onkelos, who was himself a proselyte, always translates the word in this way.

1. Ger in the Old Testament:

No difficulties were put in the way of those strangers who wished to settle down in the land of Israel. All strangers, the third generation of Egyptians and Edomites included, and only Ammonites and Moabites excluded, could enter “the congregation of God” without circumcision and without the obligation to keep the ceremonial law.

’The stranger within the gate’ was free to eat meat which was prohibited to the Israelite (Deu 14:21). If, however, the stranger wished to take part in the Passover, a feast permeated with national ideals, he must be circumcised. The keeping of the Sabbath and other feasts was regarded rather as a privilege than as a duty (Exo 23:12; Deu 16:11, Deu 16:14); but according to Lev 16:29 the gēr was obliged to keep the fast of Atonement. He was forbidden on pain of death to blaspheme (Lev 24:16) or to offer children to Molech (Lev 20:2). If he desired to bring a burnt offering, the same law applied to him as to the Israelites (Lev 17:8; Lev 22:18). Though the law of circumcision was not forced upon the gēr, it seems that the Mosaic Law endeavored to bring him nearer to the cult of Israel, not from any proselytizing motives, but in order to preserve theocracy from admixture of foreign elements, which would speedily have proved fatal to its existence.

Though the God of Israel, when He is thought of only as such, ceases to be God; though Israel was chosen before all nations for all nations; though Israel had been again and again reminded that the Messiah would bring a blessing to all nations; and though there were instances of pagans coming to believe in Yahweh, yet it did not belong to the economy of Old Testament religion to spread the knowledge of God directly among the Gentiles (the Book of Jonah is an exception to this). There was certainly no active propagandism. Though we read in Neh 10:28 of those who “separated themselves from the peoples of the lands unto the law of God” (compare Isa 56:3, “the foreigner, that hath joined himself to Yahweh” - the only and exact description of a proselyte proper in the Old Testament), the spirit of exclusiveness prevailed; the doubtful elements were separated (Ezr 4:3): mixed marriages were prohibited by the chiefs, and were afterward disapproved of by the people (Ezr 9:1-15; 10; Neh 13:23 ff). Direct proselytism did not begin till about a century later.

2. Proselytizing:

The preaching of the gospel was preceded and prepared for by the dispersion of the Jews, and a world-wide propagandism of Judaism. In the 5th century BC the Jews had a temple of their own at Syene. Alexander the Great settled 8,000 Jews in the Thebais, and Jews formed a third of the population of Alexandria. Large numbers were brought from Palestine by Ptolemy I (320 BC), and they gradually spread from Egypt along the whole Mediterranean coast of Africa. After the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes (170 BC) they scattered themselves in every direction, and, in the words of the Sibylline Oracles (circa 160 BC), “crowded with their numbers every ocean and country.” There was hardly a seaport or a commercial center in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, or the Islands of the AEgean, in which Jewish communities were not to be found. Josephus (Ant., XIV, vii, 2) quotes Strabo as saying: “It is hard to find a place in the habitable earth that hath not admitted this tribe of men, and is not possessed by them.” Thus, in spite of the hatred and contempt which Judaism everywhere excited, its lofty, austere and spiritual religious aspirations and conceptions became known to the pagan world and exercised a profound attraction upon many souls that were deeply dissatisfied with contemporary religions. Judaism was at that period filled with missionary zeal and aspired to world-mastery. Many books on Judaism (e.g. the Sibylline Oracles) were written anonymously by Jews in order to influence pagan readers. The synagogue, which had become the center of Jewish worship, now opened its doors widely to the pagan world (compare Act 15:21), and many of the sermons delivered there were directly aimed at the conversion of pagans. The Jews began to feel that they were “a guide of the blind, a fight of them that are in darkness” (Rom 2:19).

Not only Josephus (Apion, II; BJ, VII, iii, 3), but also Seneca (Apud Aug. De Civit. Dei vi. 11), Dio Cassius (xxxvii. 17), Tacitus (Ann. ii. 85; Hist. Neh 10:5), Horace (Sat. i. 4, 142), Juvenal (Sat. xiv. 96 ff), and other Greek and Roman writers testify to the widespread effects of the proselytizing propaganda of the Jews.

Many gladly frequented the synagogues and kept some of the Jewish laws and customs. Among those were to be found the “men who feared God,” spoken of in Acts. They were so called to distinguish them from full proselytes; and it was probably for this class that tablets of warning in the temple were inscribed in Greek and Latin

Another class kept practically all the Jewish laws and customs, but were not circumcised. Some again, though not circumcised, had their children circumcised (Juvenal Sat. xiv. 96 ff). Such Jewish customs as fasting, cleansings, abstaining from pork, lighting the candles on Friday evening, and keeping the Sabbath (Josephus, Apion, II, 29, etc.) were observed by these Gentile sympathizers. Schurer holds that there were congregations of Greeks and Romans in Asia Minor, and probably in Rome, which, though they had no connection with the synagogue, formed themselves into gatherings after the pattern of the synagogue, and observed some of the Jewish customs. Among the converts to Judaism there were probably few who were circumcised, and most of those who were circumcised submitted to the rite in order to marry Jewesses, or to enjoy the rights and privileges granted to the Jews by Syrian, Egyptian and Roman rulers (Josephus, Ant., XIV, vii, 2; XX, vii, 1; compare XVI, vii, 6). It would appear from Christ’s words (Mat 23:15, “one proselyte”) that the number of full proselytes was not large. Hyrcanus forced the Edomites to adopt Judaism by circumcision (129 BC); and on other occasions the same policy of propagandism by force was followed. Josephus tells an interesting story (Ant., XX, ii, 1) of the conversion of Queen Helena of Adiabene and her two sons. The conversion of the sons was due to the teaching of a merchant called Ananias, who did not insist on circumcision. Later, another Jew, Eliezer of Galilee, told the young princes that it was not enough to read the Law, but that they must keep it too, with the result that both were circumcised. From this it is evident that Jewish teachers of the Gentileconverts varied in the strictness of their teaching.

3. Proselytes in the New Testament:

The word “proselyte” occurs 4 times in the New Testament; once in Mt (Mat 23:15), where our Lord refers to the proselytizing zeal of the Pharisees, and to the pernicious influence which they exerted on their converts; and 3 times in Acts. Proselytes were present at Pentecost (Act 2:10); Nicolas, one of the deacons appointed by the primitive church at Jerusalem, was a proselyte (Act 6:5); and after Paul had spoken in the synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia, many devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas (Act 13:43). It is to be noted in this last case that the proselytes are called sebómenoi, a word generally reserved for another class. Certain people are spoken of in Acts as phoboúmenoi tón theón, “fearing God” (Act 10:2, Act 10:22, Act 10:35; Act 13:16, Act 13:26), and as sebómenoi tón theón, “reverencing God,” or simply sebómenoi (Act 13:50; Act 16:14; Act 17:4, Act 17:17; Act 18:7). These seem (as against Bertholet and EB) to have been sympathizers with Judaism, who attended the worship of the synagogue, but were not circumcised. It was among this class that the gospel made its first converts among the Gentiles. Those who were fully proselytes were probably as fanatical opponents of Christianity as were the Jews.

4. Ger in the Talmud:

From the old strict Pharisaic-Palestinian point of view, circumcision, with the addition of baptism and the offering of sacrifice, was indispensable (so to Paul every circumcised person was a Jew; compare Gal 5:3); and thus their converts had to submit to the whole burden of the Mosaic and traditional Law. The rabbinic distinction between gēr tōshābh, “a settler,” and gēr cedheḳ, “a proselyte of righteousness,” is, according to Schurer, only theoretical, and arose at a later date (Bābhā’ Mecı̄‛ā’ 5 6, 9, 12; Makkōth 2 3; N^eghā‛ı̄m 3 1, et al.).

While the gēr cedheḳ (or gēr ha-b^erı̄th, “proselyte of the covenant”) was considered as being in every respect a “perfect Israelite,” the gēr tōshābh (or gēr sha‛ar, “proselyte of the gate”; compare Exo 20:10) only professed his faith in the God of Israel, and bound himself to the observance of the 7 Noachic precepts, abstinence from blasphemy, idolatry, homicide, fornication, robbery, eating the flesh of an animal that had died a natural death, and disobedience to (Jewish) authority (Ṣanh. 56a; compare Act 15:20, Act 15:29; Act 21:25). He was considered more of a Gentile than a Jew.

Three things were required for the admission of a proselyte, circumcision,. baptism, and the offering of sacrifice (B^er. 47b; Y^ebhām. 45b, 46a, 48b, 76a; ’Ābhōth 57a, et al.). In the case of women only baptism and the offering of sacrifice were required; for that reason there were more women converts than men. Josephus (BJ, II, xx, 2) tells how most of the women of Damascus were addicted to the Jewish religion. Doubt has been expressed as to the necessity of proselytes being baptized, since there is no mention of it by Paul or Philo or Josephus, but it is probable that a Gentile, who was unclean, would not be admitted to the temple without being cleansed.

The proselyte was received in the following manner. He was first asked his reason for wishing to embrace Judaism. He was told that Israel was in a state of affliction; if he replied that he was aware of the fact and felt himself unworthy to share these afflictions, he was admitted. Then he received instruction in some of the “light” and “heavy” commandments, the rules concerning gleaning and tithes, and the penalties attached to the breach of the commandments. If he was willing to submit to all this, he was circumcised, and after his recovery he was immersed without delay. At this latter ceremony two “disciples of the wise” stood by to tell him more of the “light” and “heavy” commandments. When he came up after the immersion, those assembled addressed him saying: “Unto whom hast thou given thyself? Blessed art thou, thou hast given thyself to God; the world was created for the sake of Israel, and only Israelites are called the children of God. The afflictions, of which we spoke, we mentioned only to make thy reward the greater.” After his baptism he was considered to be a new man, “a little child newly born” (Y^ebhām. 22a, 47a, 48b, 97b); a new name was given him; either he was named “Abraham the son of Abraham,” or the Scriptures were opened at hazard, and the first name that was read was given to him. Thenceforth he had to put behind him all his past; even his marriage ties and those of kinship no longer held good (compare Y^ebhām. 22a; Ṣanhedrin 58b).

Although he was thus juridically considered a new man, and one whose praises were sung in the Talmudical literature, he was yet on the whole looked down on as inferior to a born Jew (Ḳidd. 4 7; Sh^ebhū‛ōth 10 9, et al.). Rabbi Chelbo said: “Proselytes are as injurious to Israel as a scab” (Y^ebhām. 47b; Ḳidd. 70b; compare Php 3:5). See also STRANGER.

Literature.

See articles on “Proselyte” and “Ger.” in EB, HDB, Jewish Encyclopedia, and RE; Slevogt, De proselytis Judeorum, 1651; A. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden, 1896; Schurer, HJP, 1898; Huidekoper, Judaism at Rome, 1887; Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, 1906, English translation; Allen, “On the Meaning of proselutos in the Septuagint,” The Expositor, 1894; A. B. Davidson, “They That Fear the Lord,” Expository Times, III (1892), 491 ff.

1. Meaning of the term.-The word ðñïóÞëõôïò is not found in classical Greek. It is still an open question whether those who formed the word from ðñïóÝñ÷ïìáé thought of the verb in its primary sense of ‘advenio,’ or in its religious sense of ‘(deum) adeo’ (cf. Heb_7:25, ôïὺò ðñïóåñ÷ïìÝíïõò äéʼ áὐôïῦ ôῷ Èåῷ). In the former case, ðñïóÞëõôïò originally meant advena, ‘new-comer’ (for which the classical equivalent is ἔðçëõò); in the latter, it meant ‘proselyte’ in the sense of ‘one who comes or draws near to God.’ In his exhaustive study of ðñïóÞëõôïò in the LXX_ (Exp_, 4th ser., x. 264 ff.), W. C. Allen argues from the fact that the word is correctly used in a majority of cases for the ðÌÅø to whom certain rights were conceded in Israel (Oxf. Heb. Lex., s.v. ðÌÅø 2 [p. 158a]), that its meaning was from the first that of ‘proselyte’-the meaning of ‘stranger’ being secondary, and arising from the proselyte’s having his home ‘in a strange land’ (like the Israelites themselves in Egypt: hence they are called ðñïóÞëõôïé, Exo_22:21; Exo_23:9, Lev_19:34, Deu_10:19): The statement of Philo (de Monarch. 1. 7, ôïýôïõò äὲ êáëåῖ ðñïóçëýôïõò ἀðὸ ôïῦ ðñïóåëçëõèÝíáé êáéíῇ êáὶ öéëïèÝῳ ðïëéôåßᾳ), and also the words of Josephus (Ant. XVIII. iii. 5, íïìßìïéò ðñïóåëçëõèõῖá ôïῖò Ἰïõäáéêïῖò), are in favour of this view. What prevents us, however, from giving it our full adhesion is that the LXX_ does not use ðñïóÞëõôïò in all the passages where ðÌÅø seems to mean or to approximate in meaning to ‘proselyte,’ but has sometimes ðÜñïéêïò. This, of course, may be due to different hands having been employed in the work of translation. Valuable for guidance is W. R. Smith’s note (OTJC_2, p. 342): ‘In the Levitical legislation the word Gêr is already on the way to assume the later technical sense of proselyte’ (cf. Driver, ICC_, ‘Deuteronomy,’ p. 165).

The distinction drawn between ‘the proselyte of the gate’ , who accepted the ‘Seven Noachian Laws’ (ERE_ iv. 245a), and ‘the proselyte of righteousness’, who by complete adoption of Israel’s laws became incorporated with the covenant people (HDB_ ii. 157a), belongs to Rabbinical Judaism (ERE_ vii. 592b), and is not found in Scripture. It had its precedents, however, in the differences of religious standing observable among the in Israel; while the óåâüìåíïé ôὸí èåüí mentioned by Josephus (Ant. XIV. vii. 2), and frequently in Acts, may roughly represent the ‘proselytes of the gate’ of the Gemârâ. It has been suggested that the of Psa_22:23; Psa_115:11; Psa_115:13; Psa_118:4; Psa_135:20 are identical with the öïâïýìåíïé ôὸí èåüí of Act_13:16; Act_13:26, but A. B. Davidson has shown that the general usage of the OT is against the identification (ExpT_ iii. 491). While Bertholet and others maintain that ðñïóÞëõôïé, ïἱ öïâïýìåíïé ôὸí èåüí and ïἱ óåâüìåíïé ôὸí èåüí are synonymous (EBi_ iii. 3904), the view of Schürer (HJP_ II. ii. 314 ff.) that the first term means proselytes in the technical sense, and the other two those who, without having submitted to the rite of circumcision, joined in Jewish worship, has gained a wider acceptance. The adherence of Gentiles to Judaism in the centuries immediately preceding and following the fall of Jerusalem ‘ranged over the entire gamut of possible degrees,’ depending upon ‘the different degrees in which the ceremonial precepts of the Law were observed’ (Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity2, i. 12, 10). The following passage from Theodore Reinach well illustrates this:

‘Judaism possessed the prudence and tact not to exact from its adepts [converts] at the outset full and complete adoption of the Jewish Law. The neophyte was at first simply a “friend” to the Jewish customs, observing the least enthralling ones-the Sabbath and the lighting of a fire on the previous evening; certain fast-days; abstention from pork. His sons frequented the synagogues and deserted the temples, studied the Law, and contributed their oboli to the treasury of Jerusalem [cf. Neh_10:32 f., ERE_ vii. 592a]. By degrees habit accomplished the rest. At last the proselyte took the decisive step: he received the rite of circumcision, took the hath of purity …, and offered, doubtless in money, the sacrifice which signalized his definitive entrance into the bosom of Israel. Occasionally, in order to accentuate his conversion, he even adopted a Hebraic name.… In the third generation, according to Deu_23:8, there existed no distinction between the Jew by race and the Jew by adoption’ (JE_ iv. 570).

‘The bath of purity’ here spoken of refers to the baptism of proselytes. This is described by W. Brandt (ERE_ ii. 408) as ‘a practice of ceremonial ablution altogether new,’ which ‘we may safely assume … was not of later origin than Christian baptism.’ It is not mentioned in the OT, and the traces of it found by Talmudic scholars in Gen_35:2, Exo_19:10 are quite imaginary. It is referred to by Epictetus (who taught till a.d. 94) in his conversations as a matter of common knowledge: ‘When a man,’ he says, ‘takes upon himself the arduous life of the baptized and the elect (ôïῦ âåâáììÝíïõ êáὶ ᾑñçìÝíïõ), then he is really what he calls himself, a Jew’ (Arrian, Diss. Epicteti, ii. 9). The Babylonian Talmud reports that about the end of the 1st cent. two famous Rabbis disputed with one another as to its necessity, which shows that at that period it was not universally regarded as indispensable. It was designated in later times ‘the immersion of proselytism,’ and the manner of its administration was as follows: ‘The individual who desired to become a Jew was conducted to the bath, and there immersed himself in the presence of the Rabbis, who recited to him portions of the Law’ (cf. Plummer, art._ ‘Baptism,’ HDB_ i. 239 f. for other references).

2. NT passages referring to proselytes.-(1) Mat_23:15. Grätz’s conjecture that this verse refers to an actual incident, the voyage of R. Gamaliel, R. Eliezer, R. Joshua, and R. Akiba to Rome, where they converted Flavius Clemens, the cousin of Domitian (cf. ERE_ vii. 592b), would imply that the saying is not justly attributed to our Lord. It is probable, as Adolf Jellinek, the famous Austrian Rabbi and scholar (1821-1893), suggested, that what is here condemned is the Pharisees’ practice of winning over every year at least one proselyte each (E. G. Hirsch, JE_ x. 221). (2) There were proselytes among the multitude who witnessed the miracle of Pentecost (Act_2:10), some of whom may have been added to the Church; the selection of ‘Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch’ (Act_6:5) as one of the seven deacons indicates that there was a certain proportion of men of his class in the primitive Christian community. (3) In Act_13:43 ôῶí óåâïìÝíùí ðñïóçëýôùí is perhaps a conflate reading (EBi_ iii. 3902), but the phrase appears to be a popular designation of ‘God-fearing proselytes’-the same whom St. Paul twice appeals to (Act_13:16; Act_13:26) as ïἱ öïâïýìåíïé ôὸí èåüí. (4) Act_8:27. The chamberlain of Candace is included by Reinach among the ‘distinguished recruits’ of the Jewish faith (JE_ iv. 570b). (5) Cornelius was one of the öïâïýìåíïé ôὸí èåüí (Act_10:2; Act_10:22; Act_10:35); note that in v. 35 St. Peter’s words have not the breadth often assigned to them-he only goes the length of recognizing the manifest signs of God’s acceptance of a Gentile who ‘feareth him, and worketh righteousness.’ (6) Lydia (Act_16:14), Titus Justus (Act_18:7), and the óåâüìåíïé of Thessalonica and Athens (Act_17:4; Act_17:17) illustrate the important aid that members of this class gave to St. Paul in his travels. He did not, however, always find the óåâüìåíáé ãõíáῖêåò favourable to the gospel (Act_13:50). It was partly owing to the fact of the Christian faith having found so many adherents among the óåâüìåíïé ôὸí èåüí that the class of ‘half-proselytes’ or ‘half-converts’ came to be regarded by Rabbinical teachers with doubtful approval.

3. Outline of the history of proselytism.-Conversions to Judaism went on unimpeded in NT times, both before and after the Jewish war (Parting of the Roads, pp. 285, 305). The chief source of our information on this point is Josephus, whose historical accuracy is now generally admitted (HDB_ v. 466). Some of the proselytes whom he mentions by name were acquisitions of very doubtful value, as the kings Azizus of Emesa and Polemo of Cilicia, who were prompted to embrace Judaism by the desire to contract advantageous marriages with Herodian princesses (Ant. xx. vii. 1, 3), and the Empress Poppaea, whom he calls èåïóåâÞò (ib. XX. viii. 11). On the other hand, the conversions of Helena, queen of Adiabene, and her son, Izates, seem to have been due to sincere conviction, and the chapters in which the historian records their life and virtuous deeds are some of the most attractive of his great work (ib. XX. ii-iv).

The bitterness engendered by the persecution which followed the failure of the rising against Hadrian (a.d. 132-135), and the growth of the Christian Church, were joint causes which led the Rabbis to make conversion to Judaism more difficult. ‘Qualified conversions to Judaism’ were ‘regarded with increasing disfavor,’ R. Joḥanan declaring ‘that if after a probation of twelve months the ger toshab did not submit to the rite of circumcision, he was to be regarded as a heathen’ (E. G. Hirsch, JE_ x. 222a). But the ðÌÅø öÆåÆ-he who, in St. Paul’s words, ‘by receiving circumcision, became a debtor to do the whole law’ (Gal_5:3)-was always admitted with fervour. ‘That proselytes are welcome in Israel and are beloved of God is the theme of many a rabbinical homily’ (Hirsch, loc. cit.).

It should be mentioned that in two passages of the LXX_ where a proselyte proper is meant (Exo_12:19, Isa_14:1) ðÌÅø is rendered, not by ðñïóÞëõôïò but by ãåéþñáò, an Aramaic word derived from ðÌÅø (HDB_ iv. 133a; Exp_, 4th ser., x. 269; cf. HDB_ ii. 157a).

Literature.-W. C. Allen, ‘On the meaning of ðñïóÞëõôïò in the Septuagint,’ in Exp_, 4th ser., x. [1894] 264 ff.; Arrian, Dissertationes Epicteti, ii. 9; Oxf. Heb. Lex., s.v. ðÌÅø, p. 158; A. B. Davidson, ‘They that fear the Lord,’ in ExpT_ iii. [1891-92] 491; HDB_ v. 466; S. R. Driver, ICC_, ‘Deuteronomy’2, Edinburgh, 1896, p. 165; W. Brandt, art._ ‘Baptism (Jewish),’ in ERE_ ii. 408; H. Hirschfeld, art._ ‘Creeds (Jewish),’ ib. iv. 245; H. Lcewe, art._ ‘Judaism,’ ib. vii. 592; H. Grätz, Die jüdischen Proselyten im Römerreiche, Breslau, 1884, p. 30; A. Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity2, London, 1908, pp. 10, 12; T. Reinach, art._ ‘Diaspora,’ in JE_ iv. 570; E. G. Hirsch, art._ ‘Proselyte,’ ib. x. 221, 222; A. Jellinek, Beth-ha-Midrasch, Vienna, 1853-78, pt. v. p. xlvi; A. Plummer, art._ ‘Baptism,’ in HDB_ i. 239, 240; F. C. Porter, art._ ‘Proselyte,’ ib. iv. 132 f.; W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, London, 1895, p. 43; E. Schürer, HJP_ II. ii. [Edinburgh, 1885] 311 f., 315; J. A. Selbie, art._ ‘Ger,’ in HDB_ ii. 157a; W. R. Smith, OTJC_2, London, 1892, p. 342; W. R. Smith and W. H. Bennett, art._ ‘Proselyte,’ in EBi_ iii. 3902, 3904; The Parting of the Roads, ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson, London, 1912, pp. 286, 305.

James Donald.

Throughout the cities of the Roman Empire there were communities of Jews who kept the traditions of their ancestors and attended synagogues regularly. These were known as Jews of the Dispersion, or the scattered Jews (see DISPERSION).

Many Gentiles in these cities, being attracted to the Jewish religion by the morally upright lives of the Jews, attended the synagogue services and kept some of the Jewish sabbath and food laws. These people became known as God-fearers, or worshippers of God (Act 10:1-2; Act 16:14). Some went even further and were circumcised and baptized as Jews. They were known as proselytes, or converts to Judaism (Act 2:10; Act 6:5). Many of these Gentile proselytes and God-fearers, having already come to know and worship the God of Israel, readily became Christians when they first heard the gospel of Jesus Christ (Act 13:43; Act 14:1; Act 17:4).