II. Debatable Questions.— The points of interest which present themselves for inquiry are the following:
1. The Classification of Proselytes.— The whole Jew- ish 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 -.id nid generation; a child of pure Jewish descent on both sides being designated 'Efipaloc, i£ 'E/ipatwv, a "Hebrew of the Hebrews" (Phil. iii. 5), while the son of a proselyte was denominated "i"«~"~. ben-ger, "son of a stranger;" and if both parents were proselyte-, lie was styled by the rabbins .".-."-. a contraction for 1JT"j3 n~;,~"" {Pirke Aboth, c. 5). Subordinate to this, however, was a division which has been in part antic- ipated, and was recognised by the Talmudic rabbins, but received its full expansion at the hands of Maimonides (llilc Mr/, i. (J). They claimed for it a remote an- tiquity, a divine authority.
(1.) The term Proselytes oftfo Gatt (1?1?n "H5)wa8 derived from I he frequently occurring description in the law. •■the stranger (13) that is within thy gates" (Exod. xx, 10, etc.). They were known also as the sojourners (TiCUl "Ha), with a reference to Lev. xxv, 17. etc. To
them were referred the greater pan of the precepts of the law as to the "stranger." The Targums of < tnkelps and Jonathan give this as the equivalent in Deut. xxiv, 21. Converts of this class were nut bound by circum- cision and tl ther special laws of the Mosaic Code. It
was enough for them to observe the seven precepts "i Nba 0 ho, Lex. /.'•'/-//. -. v. Noaehida; Selden, D< Jur. A'.//. . ( >,, a/, i. 10), i. e. the -i\ supposed t<> ha\ e I"', ii given to Adam > ii against idolatry, (2) against blas- pheming, .ii bloodshed, (4) against unclean- against theft, ii'.i oi obedience, with (7 | the prohibition of •• flesh with the blood thereol " given to Noah. The proselyte was not to claim the prn ileges of an Israelite, might not redeem his first-born, or pay the half-shekel. He wa- forbidden to study the law under pain of death I 1 Ml.... /. c.) The later rabbins, when Je- rusalem had passed into other hands, held that it was
unlawful for him to reside within the holy city | Mai- mon. Beth-haccher. vii. 11'. In return they allowed him to otl'er whole burnt-offering lor the priest to sac- rifice, and to contribute money to the Corban of the Temple. They held out to him the hope of a place in the paradise of the world to come ( Leyrer). They in- sisted that the profession oi hi- faith should be made solemnly in the presence of three witnesses (Maimon. ///7c. Mel. viii. 10). The Jubilee was the proper sea- son for his admission (Miiller, De Pros, in Cgolino,
XML 841).
All this seems so full and precise that we cannot wonder that it ha- led many writers to look on it as representing a reality, and most commentator- accord- ingly have seen these proselytes of the gate in the <xt- Qvfitvot, eii\a(3tt£, pofSov/tevot rbv &e.6v of the Acts. It remains doubtful, howet er, whether it was ever more t hail a paper scheme of w hat ought to be. di-gui.-ing it- self as having actually been. The writers who are most lull, w ho claim for the distinction the highest an- tiquity, confess that there had been no proselj tea ot the -ate since the two tribes and a half bad been carried away into captivity (Maimonides, Hilc. .!/</. i. 6).
They could only be admitted at the jubilee, and there had since then been no jubilee celebrated i Midler, /. c). All that can be said therefore is. that in the time of the New le-t. we have independent evidence i ut supra) of the existence of converts of two degrees, ain't that the Talmudic division is the formal systematizing of an earlier fact. The word- "proselytes!' and oi ff£j3u/i£l'01 tov Bjdj/ were, however, in all probability limited to the circumcised.
(2.) In contrast with these were the /'/••<,/;/!,.< of Righteousness tjTiun ~ "" " > . known also a- Proselytes of the Covenant, perfect Israelites. By some writers the Talmudic phrase proselyti tracti i """"""■ i is ap- plied to them as drawn to the covenant by spontaneous conviction (Buxtorf, Lex. s. v.), while others (Kimchi) refer it to those who were constrained to conformity,
like the Gibt ites. Here also wo must receive what
we find with the same limitation as before. That there were, in later time- especially, many among the Jews who had renounced the grosser parts ot heathenism without having come over entirely to Judaism, is be- yond all doubt ; but that these were ever counted pros- elytes admits of question. Certain it is that the prose- lytes mentioned in the X. w Test, were all persons who bad received eircunici-ion, and entind the pale of the Jewish community; they wen' persons who, according
to the phraseology of the < Hd Test, had become Jews (D'^'irPri/EI, joined, I'.-th. viii. 17). It is probable that the distinction above mentioned was introduced by the later rabbins for the sake of including among the con- quests of their religion those who, though indebted
probably to the Jewish Scriptures for their improved faith, were yet not inclined to submit to the ritual of Judaism, or to become incorporated with the Jewish nation. That this, however, was not the ancient view- is clearly apparent from a passage in the Babylonian Gemara, quoted by Lightfoot (Hor. Ueb. <t Talm. in Mull. iii. 6), where it is said expressly that "no one is a proselyte until such time as he has been circum- cised." Fllrst, himself a Jew, confirms our suggestion; for in a note upon the word "■">. in his Concordantia /.ilili. V. 7'.. he say-: " I he Jew-, interpreting dogmati- cally rather than historically, refer the word to him who ha- abandoned heathen BUperstitions." Maimoni- des, indeed, speaks of such a distinction, but the late- ness of the period at which he flourished (A.D. 1160), and the absence of any scriptural authority, require US to consider his assertions a- referring to a time much later than that ot the apostles. "According to my