Bertholet is probably ri"ht in insisting that there was only one sort of convert, the circum- cised foreigner, who undertook to fulfil the whole law (Gal 5»). He reco'niizes, too (pp. 2'J8-300, 334), the undoubted fact that Cornelius was a repre- sentative of a large class of Greeks who were attracted by certain beliefs of Judaism, and adopted certain of its customs, were recognized by Jews as religious and virtuous men, but did not cross tlie strict line which still separated Jew from Gentile. But it seems probable that he is mistaken in com- bating the common view that such Greeks were called ' God-fearers.' It is true that, in the absence of evidence of the common use of the word 'proselyte' itself, we might be tempted to find in i tpoiiov/iefos an earlier technical name for the prosel_\ te proper, as Cremer seems to do * on the basis of 2 Ch 5^ LXX. But for this the evidence is too slight.
The number of foreigners who had come in some measure under the Jewi!<li religion was, according to Josephus {Ant. xiv. vii. 2; c. Ap. ii. 29) and I'hilo {Vita Mos. ii. 4), very large.t Schiirer's careful collection and investigation of the evidence of inscriptions J proves that there were Greek religious societies in the first centuries after Christ, of so-called 'worshippers of the Most High God,' who got their name and their monotheistic faith from the .lews, and yet held to many elements of Greek religion. They were a result, in Scliiirer's opinion, of Jewish propaganda, but remained part Jewish, part Greek, in very varying proportions. One who belonged to such a society could well have (Tf^d/ifvo!, or mcluens, inscribed on his tomb.§
The ' God-fearers,' then, are not proselytes in any proper sense, in 8])ite of Ac 13''', which, if not due to an early te.\tual error, is an indication of a somewhat free, untechnical use of irpocrriKvToi itself, such as the LXX would suggest. If the latter lie allowed here, the question might arise whether all the 'proselytes' in 2'" were certainly circumcised. The question is made the harder by the uncertainty whether the jihrase ai)plies only to the Komans (Zahn) or to all those named in vv.»- '" (Holtzmann, etc.), and whether they were then permanent residents in Jerusalem (v.°), or pilgrims to the feast.
The phrase Proselytes of th« Gate has nothing whatever to do with the ae^b^enoi Tbv 0e6v. It is simply a late Itabbinical title (after Ex 20'», Dt 5" etc.) for sojourners in Israel's land (the original gcrim). Earlier, in the Mishna, such a person is ger tCshab (cf. Lv 25'"''). || In distinction from
• Vi'iirtfrh^ieh, $. wp*r^>ur»€, c*Si*»'
f See contiriiiatory evidence in Bertholet, p. 293ff., uid BcliilrtT.
; l>if Juden im ftotporaniaehen lirifhe uiul die Geno»stnsefi<n/- ten tier rijtuitai flio, Cr^itrt* fltendasetOtt, 1897.
i AKuinst llertholft, p. .S3'2.
I Tlic gfr and t<l»/m6 arc distinguished In Ex 12" «, Lv 25*'«, Nu S6'5 etc., tivit are cImcIv ogsoclaU'd (ct. Cn 2a*, Lv 24«1- K, 1 Ob W», Ps 88», and Lr 250. *^).
these, the proselyte was called by late Rabbis the 'Proselyte of liighteousness,' while in the Mishna he is simply the ' ijer.' *
Although there were among the heathen many who were attracted by the monotheism and mor- ality of Judaism, and attended the 8yna"ogue services, yet these were not in our sense proselytes. A heathen could become a Jew only by circum- cision, hence there was but one order of proselytes proper. Lardner had already made the correct observation: 'There was but one sort of proselytes among the Jews (the circumcised), and Cornelius was not a proselyte but a Gentile.' t But that the word vpoirriXvToi was applied exclusively to these in NT times is not certain.
iii. The Duties and Bights of Proselytes, i.e. of circumcised foreigners, were ideally the same as those of circumcised Jews (Ex 12''''). Philo gives abundant evidence that a Greek became a proselyte only by a violent and absolute break with his past life and associations.^ So Tacitus (Hist. v. 5) says that proselytes learn to despise the gods, cast off the fatherland, and hold parents, children, brothers, in contempt. The story of Izates is not in conflict with this.§ His first Jewish adviser dissuaded him from circumcision, telling him that he could worship the deity (t6 Odov aijieLv) without it. But this only meant that it was better for him to remain a heathen and not to become a Jew. The second adviser encouraged him to become a proselyte.
If circumcision was the decisive step in the case of all male converts, there seems no longer room for serious question that a bath of purification must have followed, even though early mention of such proselyte hnptism is not found. || The law (Lv 11-15, Nu 19) prescribed such baths in all cases of impurity, and one who came with the deep impurity of a heathen life behind him could not have entered the Jewish comiminity without such cleansing. As long as the temple stood, an ottering made a third (in case of women a second) rite in connexion with the proselyte's reception.
According to Dt 23-'''''- full entrance into the assembly of the Lord was denied entirely to eunuchs (but see Is OG"'"), bastards, IT Ammonites, and Moabites ; while admittance was granted to children of the third generation in the case of the Edomite and the Egyptian. It is not clear how far this principle may have been applied in later times, or just what restrictions it imiilied.** Certainly, the Passover could be observed after circumcision (Ex 12").