(2.) The negative argument drawn from the silence of the Old Test., of the Apocrypha, of Philo, and of Jo- sephus, is almost decisive against the belief that there was in their time a baptism of proselytes with as much importance attached to it as we find in the Talmudists.
(3.) It remains probable, however, that there was a baptism in use at a period considerably earlier than that for which we have direct evidence. The symbol was in itself natural and fit. It fell in with the disposition of the Pharisees and others to multiply and discuss " washings" (/itt7rr«TjUo<, Mark vii, 4) of all kinds. The tendency of the later rabbins was rather to heap to- gether the customs and traditions of the past than to invent new ones. If there had not been a baptism, there would have been no initiatory rite at all for fe- male proselytes. The custom of baptizing proselytes thus arose gradually out of the habit which the Jews had of purifying by ablution whatever they deemed unclean, and came to be raised for the first time to the importance of an initiatory ordinance after the destruc- tion of the Temple service, and when, in consequence of imperial edicts, it became difficult to circumcise con- verts. This latter opinion is that of Schneckenburger (Ueb. das Alter d.jiid. Proselyten-Taufe [Berlin, 1828]), and has been espoused by several eminent German scholars. To us, however, it appears exceedingly un- satisfactory. The single fact adduced in support of it, viz. the difficulty of circumcising converts in conse- quence of the imperial edicts against proselytism, is a singularly infelicitous piece of evidence; for. as the question to be solved is, How came the later rabbins to prescribe both baptism and circumcision as initiatory rites for proselytes? it is manifestly absurd to reply that it was because they could only baptize and could not circumcise : such an answer is a contradiction, not a solution of the question. Besides, this hypothesis suggests a source of proselyte baptism which is equally available for that which it is designed to supersede; for, if the practice of baptizing proselytes on their introduc- tion into Judaism had its rise in the Jewish habit of ablution, why might not this have operated in the way suggested two hundred years before Christ as well as two hundred years after Christ? In fine, this hypoth- esis 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 relig- ious rite which was well known to be the initiatory rite of Christianity. Assuming that they practiced that rite before, we can account for their not giving it up simply because the Christians had adopted it; but, trace it as we please to Jewish customs and rites, it seems utterly incredible that after it had become the symbol and badge of the religious party which of all others, perhaps, the Jews most bitterly hated, any con- sideration whatever should have induced them to begin to practice it. On the other hand we have, in favor of the hypothesis that proselyte baptism was practiced an- terior to the time of our Lord, some stronghy corrobora-
PROSELYTE
6C2
PROSELYTES
tive evidence. 1. We have, in the first place, the unan- imous tradition of the Jewish rabbins, who impute to the practice an antiquity commensurate almost with that of their nation. 2. 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 di\ ine m. 3. 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 (John i.. I 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 (iii, 25 sq.). 4. We have the fact that on the day of Pentecost Peter addressed to a mul- titude of persons collected from several different and distant countries, .lews and proselytes, an exhortation to "repent and be baptized" (Acts ii. 38), from which it may be fairly inferred that they all knew what bap- tism meant, and also its connection with repentance or a change of religious views. 5. We have the fact that. according to Josephus, the Essenes were accustomed, before admitting a new convert into their society, sol- emnly and ritually to purity him with waters of cleans- ing {War, ii, 8, 7), a statement which cannot be un- derstood of their ordinary ablutions before meals (as Stuart proposes in his Essay on the Mode of Baptism, p. 67 i : 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. (>. 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 godli- ness, as preparatory to baptism, he adds. '-For it ap- peared to him that baptism was admissible not when they used it for obtaining forgiveness of some sins, but for the purification of the body when the soul bad been alreadj cleansed by righteousness" (Ant. xviii, 5, 2); which seems to indicate the conviction of the historian thai John did not introduce this rite, but only gave to it a peculiar meaning. Yet John's proceeding was not an act of initiation into any new system of faith, much less comparable to a conversion from paganism; for the subjects were Jews already. It was rather a general ablution, in token of wiping off a long-accumulated score of offences. See John the Baptist.