¹ The standard survey in English is Bamberger, B. J., Proselytism in the Talmudic Period (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1939Google Scholar; reprinted New York: Ktav, 1968); for a recent summary of the evidence see the Millar, F., “Gentiles and Judaism: ‘God-fearers’ and Proselytes,” in Schürer, Emil, ed., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (rev. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Martin Goodman; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986) 3.1, 150–76.Google Scholar This article is another in a series about conversion and intermarriage in antiquity. See inter alia “Conversion to Judaism in Historical Perspective: From Biblical Israel to Post-Biblical Judaism,” Conservative Judaism 36 (1983) 31–45Google Scholar; “The Origins of the.Matrilineal Principle in Rabbinic Law,” AJSreview 10 (1985) 19–53Google Scholar; and “Was Timothy Jewish (Acts 16:1–3)? Patristic Exegesis, Rabbinic Law, and Matrilineal Descent,” JBL 105 (1986) 251–68.Google Scholar I do not know of any study devoted specifically to the theme of this essay; see Feldman, Louis H., Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–1980) (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1984) 726–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, bibliography on “Proselytes and ‘Sympathizers.’” Schiffman, L. H., “Proselytism in the Writings of Josephus: Izates of Adiabene in the Light of the Halakah,” in Rappaport, U., ed., Josephus Flavius: Historian of Eretz-Israel in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Izhak ben Zvi Institute, 1982) 247–65Google Scholar, is more a study of the Adiabene narrative and Rabbinic law than of proselytism in the writings of Josephus. Stern, Menahem, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science, 1974–1984)Google Scholar, is cited as “Stem, Greek and Latin Authors.”

² Cohen, Shaye J. D.. Josephus in Galilee and Rome (Leiden: Brill, 1979) 276Google Scholar, index s.v. “Josephus, inconsistency and sloppiness.”

³ Nock, Arthur Darby, Conversion (Oxford: Clarendon, 1933: reprinted 1972) 6–7.Google Scholar

⁴ In this definition of “conversion,” Nock was indebted to James, William, The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902; reprinted New York: The Modern Library, n.d.) lectures IX–X.Google Scholar In his “Paul and the Magus,” in Foakes, F. J. and Lake, Kirsopp, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols; 1920–33; reprinted Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 5. 184–87Google Scholar, Nock seems to employ a different definition of “conversion,” a definition that is less intellectual and more experiential (“an attitude of submissive reliance in the new dynamis and its representatives”). Ramsay MacMullen objects that the two definitions are mutually exclusive, but I think that they reflect two aspects of the same process; see MacMullen, , “Two Types of Conversion to Early Christianity,” VC 37 (1983) 174–92Google Scholar, and idem, “Conversion: A Historian's View,” SecCent 5 (1985–1986) 67–81Google Scholar, esp. 74–75, with the response by William S. Babcock, 82–89. In any case, Josephus is not familiar with either definition.

⁵ The clearest evidence that a “convert” joins the Jewish community is the imperial legislation of the fourth century. Cf. Codex Theodosianus 16.8.1 (18 Oct 315): “si quis vero ex populo ad eorum [i.e., Iudaeorum] nefariam sectam accesserit et conciliabulis eorum se adplicaverit” and Codex Theodosianus 16.8.7 (3 July 357 [?]): “si quis … ex Christiano Iudaeus effectus sacrilegis coetibus adgregetur.”

⁶ See De virt. 20–21 §§ 102–8 and 34 § 182; De spec. leg. 1.9–10 §§ 51–57. For discussion see Wolfson, Harry A.. Philo (2 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947) 2. 352–59Google Scholar and 369–74.

⁷ Rabbinic law provides a curious parallel; cf. b. Yeb. 47a-b, the description of the Rabbinic conversion ritual, which omits the requirement of the exclusive recognition of God. Maimonides sensed the lacuna (Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 14.2); see Twersky, Isadore, Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980) 474–75.Google Scholar

⁸ Nor does Josephus use epistrephein (the Greek equivalent of convertere) or epistrephesthai in this sense; contrast 1 Thess 1:9 and numerous other NT passages.

⁹ Only one passage explicitly raises the question (Bell. 7.3.3 §45), albeit in obscure terms; see below.

¹⁰ On the date of the De bello Judaico, see Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome 84–90. Seth Schwartz argues that book 7 of the De bello Judaico was not completed until late in the reign of Domitian or early in the reign of Trajan, but even he assigns some of the book to a first edition early in the reign of Domitian. I cannot discuss here the implications of this view; see Schwartz, , “The Composition and Publication of Josephus's Bellum Judaicum Book 7,” HTR 79 (1986) 373–86.Google Scholar

¹¹ Here I develop some ideas first outlined in “Alexander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest according to Josephus,” AJSreview 7–8 (1982–1983) 41–68, esp. 57–60.Google Scholar

¹² For references see Cohen, Shaye J. D., “Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius,” History and Theory 21 (1982) 366–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ Ant. 13.8.2–3 §§ 242–47; Bell. 1.7.6 §§ 152–54 // Ant. 14.4.4 §§ 71–73.

¹⁴ Sacrifice and worship in the temple: Ant. 11.3.1 §§31–32; 11.3.7 §58; 11.4.1 §78; 11.4.6 §§ 97–103 (Cyrus and Darius); 11.5.1 §§ 123–30 (Xerxes); 11.8.5 § 336 (Alexander); 12.2.4 § 47; 12.2.10 § 90 (Philadelphus); 13.2.3 § 55 (Demetrius); 13.8.2 § 242–43 (Antiochus Sidetes); 14.16.4 § 488 // Bell. 1.18.3 § 357 (Sossius); 16.2.1 § 14 (Agrippa); 18.5.3 § 122 (Vitellius); Bell. 2.16.2 § 341 (Neopolitanus); C. Apion. 2.5 § 48 (Ptolemy III). Recognize that God protects and punishes his people: Ant. 8.14.3 § 379; 9.1.4 § 16; 9.4.6 § 87; 10.1.2 § 7 (Rabshakeh); Bell. 3.10.2 § 484; 3.10.4 § 494; 6.1.5 § 39; 6.9.1 § 411 (Titus). Believe that God appoints and removes kings: Ant. 10.8.2 § 139; 11.1.1 §§ 3–4; 11.3.1 §§ 31–32; 11.3.7 § 58; 11.4.6 § 103; 11.6.12 § 279; 12.2.3 § 25; 12.2.4 § 47; 12.9.1 §§ 357–59.

¹⁵ Piety towards God and praise of God: Ant. 2.6.6 § 122 (Joseph the “pagan” vizier refers to θεὸν επὶ πᾶσι προστάτην); 5.4.2 § 193 (Eglon the Moabite king is overjoyed to receive a message from God); 8.2.1 § 53 (Hiram king of Tyre); 8.6.5 § 173 (Queen of Sheba); 8.14.3 § 379; 8.14.5 § 392; 9.4.4 § 60; 9.4.6 § 87 (Ben Haddad punished because he thinks that the God of Israel has power only in the hills); 9.1.4 § 16; 11.5.1 § 120 (eusebeia toward God by Darius and Xerxes); 12.2.3 § 37 (Demetrius of Phalerum to Philadelphus); 13.3.2 § 70 (Philometor and Cleopatra); 13.8.2 §§ 242–43 (Antiochus Sidetes’ eusebeia toward God); Bell. 2.10.5 §201; Ant. 18.7.6 § 286 and § 288; 18.7.9 § 309 (Petronius). Worship God through their own rituals: Ant. 14.10.23 § 257 (piety of Halicarnassus towards God); Bell. 2.11.5 § 214 (Claudius); 3.9.7 § 444 (Vespasian).

¹⁶ Tones down declarations: Ant. 3.3 §§ 63–65 (Josephus transfers Raguel's sacrifice to Moses and omits the declaration of Exod 18:11); 8.2.7 § 53 (Josephus prefers 1 Kgs 5:21 to the much fuller 2 Chr 2:10–12 which is followed by Eupolemus); 10.10.5 § 211 (cf. Dan 2:46) and § 215 (cf. Dan 3:28–33); 10.10.6 § 217; 10.11.3 § 242 (cf. Dan 4:31–34); 11.6.12 § 279 (tones down some of the superlatives found in the LXX Esth 8:12 = 16:16). Josephus's version of the story of 3 Maccabees does not have the king proclaim the might of Israel's God (C. Apion. 2.5 §§ 53–55; contrast 3 Macc 6:28, 33; 7:9). Exceptions: Nebuchadnezzar proclaims μέγας ό θεός (Ant. 10.8.2 § 139, invented by Josephus); Ant. 10.11.7 § 263 closely repeats Dan 6:26–28. Petronius: see previous note.

¹⁷ Thucydides clearly believes that the Thebans were correct and that the Athenians, their opponents, were wrong; see Jordan, Borimir, “Religion in Thucydides,” TAPA 116 (1986) 119–47Google Scholar, at 129–30.

¹⁸ Cohen, “Alexander,” 46–47 n. 13.

¹⁹ The same standard is applied to Jewish rulers as well in the Antiquitates, but not in the De bello. See Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 148.

²⁰ On Josephus's use of ideal types and on the importance of eunoia and pistis, see Cohen, “Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius.” and idem, Josephus in Galilee and Rome. 91–97 and index on 276. According to Suetonius, Augustus commended his grandson Gaius because he refrained from worshiping at the temple in Jerusalem on his journey in the east (Augustus 93 = Stern, Greek and Latin Authors. # 304). Perhaps the emperor felt that worship at the temple might encourage “judaizing” among the Romans, but this is not the Roman attitude according to Josephus.

²¹ The translation is mine, based on that of Henry St. John Thackeray in the LCL.

²² Thackeray's rendering in the Loeb edition is more a paraphrase than a translation. Smith, Morton (Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament [New York: Columbia University Press, 1971] 239 n. 33)Google Scholar objects to Thackeray's translation of μεμιγμένον with “neutral.” Better is the translation of Michel, Otto and Bauernfeind, Otto, Flavius Josephus De Bello Judaico (4 vols.: Munich: Kosel, 1959) 1. 275Google Scholar: “Man mochte zwar die nach beiden Seiten hin zweifelhafte Gruppe nicht ohne Weiteres umbringen, fürchtete sie aber doch auf Grund ihrer Verbindung mit den Juden, als seien sie wirklich Feinde.”

²³ A parallel is provided by the Tannaitic tradition about Monobazus and Helena which, unlike the Amoraic, does not mention the fact of their conversion; see Schiffman. “Izates,” 255–56. The significance of this parallel eludes me. The De bello Judaico and the Tannaim suppress the fact that the Adiabene princes were converts; Tacitus and Dio suppress the fact that they were Jewish at all (Stern, Greek and Latin Authors. ## 286, 424, 425). Tacitus also suppresses the Jewish origin of Tiberius Julius Alexander and the Herodian kings of Armenia Major, probably because these figures (unlike the kings of Adiabene) tried to hide their own origins; see Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, ## 273, 285.

²⁴ It also is Aramaic for “adulterer.”

²⁵ Xenoi must mean “Gentiles,” not “Jews from outside Jerusalem”; see 5.1.3 § 18 (ἀλλόφυλοι). Cf. Bell. 6.2.4 § 126. Michel and Bauernfeind. however, understand Bell. 5.1.3 § 15 to refer to pilgrims from the diaspora; see their note ad loc.

²⁶ Cf. Dio Cassius 66.4.3; 66.5.4 = Stern, Greek and Latin Authors.# 430.

²⁷ The other two non-Christian attestations of ioudaizein can be construed with either meaning; see Plutarch Cicero 7:6 = Stern. Greek and Latin Authors. # 263 and LXX Esth 8:17. lakonizein is similarly ambiguous: it can mean either “act like a Spartan” or “side with the Spartans.” For the political meaning, cf. medizein. attikizein, makedonizein, romaizein, etc. For the cultural meaning cf. skuthizein, “act like a Scyth.” (My thanks to Professors Vincent Rosivach and Timothy D. Barnes for reminding me of these parallel verbs.)

²⁸ “Venerating God” precedes the actual conversion; see Schiffman, “Izates,” 258–60; Schwartz, Daniel R.. “Pontius Pilate's Appointment to Office and the Chronology of Josephus's Jewish Antiquities Books XVIII–XX,” Zion 48 (1982/1983) 325–45Google Scholar, esp. 339–40 (in Hebrew).

²⁹ In addition, the Testimonium Flavianum (18.3.3 § 63) records that “Jesus won over many Jews and many of the Greeks” (πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἐλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο).

³⁰ For another reference to the veneration (sebein) of the God of Israel by Gentiles see 11.4.3 § 87; cf. Ant. 3.7.7 § 179. On Ant. 14.7.2 § 110 see Feldman, L. H., “Jewish ‘Sympathizers’ in Classical Literature and Inscriptions.” TAPA 81 (1950) 200–208Google Scholar, esp. 206–7 (following K. Lake); Marcus, R., “The Sebomenoi in Josephus.” JSS 14 (1952) 247–50Google Scholar; Lifshitz, B.. “Du nouveau sur les ‘sympathisants’.” JSJ 1 (1970) 77–84.Google ScholarOn Ant. 20.8.11 § 195 see Feldman's note in the Loeb edition and Stern's note in Greek and Latin Authors, 2.5–6 n. 12. The best general survey of the evidence for “God-fearers” is Siegert, F., JSJ 4 (1973) 109–64.Google Scholar Recently some scholars have argued that Gentile “judaizers” did not exist, a position which requires no rebuttal.

³¹ LXX Esth 8:17 uses ioudaizein, but Josephus omits it.

³² Cf. 13.15.4 § 397: the citizens of Pella refuse “to change over to the ancestral customs of the Jews” (εὶς τὰ πάτρια τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθη μεταβαλεῖσθαι).

³³ In spite of his use of this phraseology. Josephus avoids the term “proselyte.” Elsewhere too he expresses the notion of Gentiles “entering,” “coming towards,” or “coming under” Jewish practices; cf. εἰς τοὺς ήμετέρους νόμους εἰσελθεῖν (C. Apion. 2.10 § 123) and ὑπὸ τοὺς νόμους ζῆν ύπελθόντες (C. Apion. 2.28 § 209). See Lake, Kirsopp, The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles (5 vols.: reprinted Grand Rapids, Baker, 1979) 5. 83Google Scholar; Karl Georg Kuhn, “Proselytos,” TDNT 6. 731–32.

³⁴ In the Adiabene story Josephus distinguishes “adherence” to Judaism through veneration of God (Ant. 20.2.3 § 34; 20.2.4 § 41) from “conversion” to Judaism through circumcision and the observance of Jewish practices. Before his circumcision Izates reads the Torah but is told by Eleazar that he must also practice it (Ant. 20.2.4 § 44). implying that he had not yet been doing so. Only after his circumcision does Izates run the risk of being regarded a devotee of foreign customs (Ant. 20.2.4 § 47; 20.4.1 §§ 75–77). See the discussion in Schiffman and Schwartz (n. 28 above).

³⁵ Cf. Dio Cassius who uses similar phraseology (ὅσοι τὰ νόμιμα αὐτῶν καίπερ ἀλλοεθνεῖς ὄντες ζηλοῦσι, 66.17.1 = Stern, Greek and Latin Authors,# 406; συχνοὺς τῶν ἐπιχωρίων ἐς τὰ σφέτερα ἔθη μεθιστάντων 57.18.5a = ibid., # 419; cf. 66.7.2 = ibid., # 430 and 67.14.2 = ibid., # 435), but does not mention circumcision.

³⁶ For a good survey of the evidence see Collins, John J., “A Symbol of Otherness: Circumcision and Salvation in the First Century,” in Neusner, Jacob and Frerichs, E., eds., “To See Ourselves as Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985) 163–86.Google Scholar

³⁷ How then do women “convert” to Judaism? See the appendix.

³⁸ For other Jewish kings of non-Jewish areas cf. Tigranes of Armenia, who abandoned the Jewish ways (Ant. 18.5.4 §§ 140–41), and Aristobulus king of Armenia Minor (Ant. 20.8.4 § 158).

³⁹ Balaam says “The race of Hebrews will never be overwhelmed by utter destruction. … Yet misfortunes may well befall them of little moment and for a little while, whereby they will appear to be abased, though only thereafter to flourish once more to the terror of those who inflicted these injuries upon them” (Ant. 4.6.6 §§ 127–28, trans. Thackeray).

⁴⁰ Kasher, Aryeh, “The War of Alexander Jannaeus against the Hellenistic Cities,” Cathedra 41 (1986) 11–36Google Scholar, esp. 27–28 (in Hebrew).

⁴¹ Jacoby, FGrH 199 = Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, # 146.

⁴² Geographica 16.2.34 = Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, # 115.

⁴³ Jacoby, FGrH 88 F 5 = FGrH 91 F 11 = Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, # 81.

⁴⁴ See, e.g., Jacoby's discussion of FGrH 91 F 11 and Stern's discussion of Ptolemy and Timagenes.

⁴⁵ Kasher, Aryeh, “Jews and Itureans in the Hasmonean Period,” Cathedra 33 (1984) 18–41Google Scholar, esp. 24–32 (in Hebrew). Schottroff, W., “Die Ituraer,” ZDPV 98 (1982) 125–52Google Scholar, does not discuss the question.

⁴⁶ In all likelihood it was a voluntary federation based on the common link of circumcision. See Rappaport, Uriel, “The Hellenistic Cities and the Judaization of the Land of Israel in the Hasmonean Period,” in Perlman, S. and Shimron, B., eds., Doron: Commentationes … Benzioni Kati … Dedicatae (in Hebrew; Tel Aviv: University of Tel Aviv, 1967) 219–30, esp. 229Google Scholar; and Kasher, “Jews and Itureans.”

⁴⁷ Smith, Morton, “Rome and Maccabean Conversions,” in Bammel, E., Barrett, C. K., and Davies, W. D., eds., Donum Gentilicium: New Testament Studies in Honour of David Daube (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978) 1–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ 57.18.5a = Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, # 419.

⁴⁹ Most scholars accept Dio's explanation for the expulsion. See Feldman's notes on Ant. 18.3.5 §§ 81–84 and Stern, M., “The Expulsions of Jews from Rome in Antiquity,” Zion 44 (1979) 1–27, esp. 10–17 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ The fullest exposition of this thesis remains Belkin, Samuel, “The Alexandrian Source for Contra Apionem II,” JQR 27 (1936) 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵¹ Note that Ant. 14.7.2 § 110 refers to sebomenoi in Asia and Europe, not Africa.

⁵² The reference to the lighting of lamps is probably a Josephan touch based on his knowledge of the practices of the Jewish community of Rome; cf. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, # 188 (Seneca) and # 190 (Persius). Stern suggests that Lysimachus too refers to the practice (C. Apion. 1.34 § 308 = Greek and Latin Authors, # 158), but the suggestion is unnecessary.

⁵³ Abraham Schalit and several other Israeli scholars have proposed that Josephus in the De bello Judaico understands Judaism as a nationality and a political entity, while in the Antiquitates Judaicae he understands it more as a religion. In other words, in the Antiquitates Josephus is writing as a diaspora Jew. For bibliography and discussion see Schwartz, Daniel R., “Wilderness and Temple: On Religion and State in the Second Temple Period,” in Priesthood and Kingship (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1987) 61–78, esp. 66–67.Google Scholar This would explain why the De bello Judaico sees “adherence” in political terms and the Antiquitates Judaicae sees it in religious terms, but the other contrasts remain unexplained.

⁵⁴ Nam pessimus quisque spretis religionibus patriis tributa et stipes illuc congerebant.

⁵⁵ Circumcidere genitalia instituerunt ut diversitate noscantur. Transgressi in morem eorum idem usurpant, nec quidquam prius imbuuntur quam contemnere deos, exuere patriam, parentes liberos fratres vilia habere.

⁵⁶ Lewy, Yohanan (Hans), Studies in Jewish Hellenism (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1960) 150–61.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ On these actions of Domitian see Smallwood, E. Mary, The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (SJLA 20; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 376–85.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ The De bello Judaico mentions the aid received from the princes of Adiabene, but nowhere reveals that they were converts; see above.

⁵⁹ Not even the Adiabene story mentions immersion; see Schiffman, “Izates,” 261–62.

⁶⁰ Cf. Plutarch Moralia 140d = Advice to Bride and Groom 19, “It is becoming for a wife to worship and to know only the gods that her husband believes in.”

⁶¹ On the history of conversion of women, see Daube, David, Ancient Jewish Law (Leiden: Brill, 1981) chap. 1Google Scholar; and Cohen, “Origins of the Matrilineal Principle.” Many scholars have used the Josephan evidence to prove that most converts to Judaism in the first century were women; see for example Kuhn, Karl G. and Stegemann, H., “Proselyten,” PWSup 9 (1962) 1264.Google Scholar But this argument fails to consider the fact that Josephus intentionally minimized all references to “conversion.” In any case, even these scholars do not explain the process of “conversion” for women in the absence of immersion. Conversion to Judaism by women is the subject of a forthcoming study by Ross Kraemer.

⁶² I am grateful to Professor David Daube, Professor Louis H. Feldman, Professor Ramsay Mac-Mullen, Dr. Daniel R. Schwartz, and Dr. Seth Schwartz for their suggestions and criticisms. This paper was written during a research leave funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, and I am grateful to the NEH for its support.