^{page 193 note 1} Chapters in a Life of Paul (New York and Nashville; Abingdon Press, 1950).

^{page 193 note 2} New Testament Studies, vol. i (1954), pp. 150–4.

^{page 193 note 3} Namely, association with the Covenant; use of the formula, ‘in the name of God’, association with formal instruction (illumination); its mandatory public character; inclusion of proselytes’ children; eschatological significance (‘a backward and forward reference’ and association with the promise of life in ‘the world to come’); frequent observance preceding Passover, etc. He does admit that, ‘the practice (of proselyte baptism) is not fully shaped in our oldest evidence’. Ibid. p. 154.

^{page 194 note 1} New Testament Studies, vol. i (1954), p. 154.

^{page 194 note 2} A convenient translation of the significant parts of these passages in parallel columns will be found in Frank Gavin, The Jewish Antecedents of the Christian Sacraments (London, 1928), pp. 33–5. He takes Gerim to represent the rite fairly accurately before the middle of the second century A.D.

^{page 194 note 3} George Foot Moore points out that the ‘superficial analogy to the many baths prescribed in the law for purification after one kind or another of religious uncleanness’, and the explanation ‘that proselytes were required to bathe in order to purify themselves…from the uncleanness in which the whole life of the heathen was passed’ fall short. Jewish teachers in the early centuries neither used this analogy, nor did they set forth this explanation. And the rite itself differed from the usual purificatory immersions in that it required the presence of witnesses. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge, U.S.A., 1927, reprint 1946), vol. i, pp. 332f. B. J. Bamberger, in Proselytism in the Talmudic Period (Cincinnati, 1939), p. 44, is probably right in disagreeing with Moore, who held that proselyte baptism had no purificatory significance whatever (op. cit. vol. i, p. 334; vol. ii, p. 109 n. 101). While initiation is the major note in proselyte baptism it has not lost entirely its primitive ritualistic cleansing character. The rubric in Yeb. 47 b, that ‘the same rule prevails for a woman taking her bath of purification…’ is enough in itself to demonstrate that it was bound by the same regulations.

^{page 194 note 4} E.g., Shab. 135a, 137b; Pes. 7b; Yeb. 46a, b; Kidd. 62a, b; Talm. Yer., Yeb. 8d, 46b.

^{page 194 note 5} E.g., Yeb. 45b–46a; A. Zar. 57a, b.

^{page 194 note 6} Mishna, Mikw. passim, etc.

^{page 194 note 7} Mishna, Toh. and Nidd. passim, etc.

^{page 194 note 8} E.g. Moore, G. F., op. cit. vol. iii, pp. 109f.; F. Gavin, op. cit. p. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 1} Both, G. F. Moore (op. cit. p. 332f.) and F. Gavin (op. cit. p. 30ff.), themselves admit as much, as have K. Kohler, Jewish Theology (New York, 1918), and B. Bamberger (op. cit. p. 44) who says, ‘Without attempting to determine the exact date at which the baptism of converts was made a requirement, it is worth pointing out that this ceremony was an innovation at some time after the close of the Biblical (i.e. O.T.) period. The Bible speaks only of circumcision.’ Professor Bultmann writes, ‘The analogy which exists between early Christian baptism and the Jewish baptism of proselytes does not signify that the former originated out of the latter; for if that were the case, one would expect it to have been performed on Gentiles only. Certain testimony to the practice of proselyte baptism is not found before the end of the first century A.D. It may have been older, but that cannot be proved’. Theology of the New Testament (New York, 1951), vol. 1, p. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 2} ‘Baptism’ in Jas., Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible (New York, 1911), vol. 1, p. 239.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 3} Mishna could not have been reduced to writing until the late second century at the earliest, and this possibly did not occur until nearer the fifth, or even the sixth century. E.g., M. Mielzener, Introduction to the Talmud 3rd ed. (New York, 1925), pp. 4–7; H. L. Strack Introduction to the Talmud (Philadelphia, 1931), pp. 8–25; B. J. Bamberger, op. cit. pp. 3 ff. The earliest explicit literary reference to Mishna in written form is found in Justinian (Emp. A.D. 527–65), . Novellae Constitutiones, cited by Strack, op. cit. p. 247, n. 104.

^{page 195 note 4} Op. cit. p. 154, n. 4.

^{page 195 note 5} Cf. Thomas, J., Le mouvement baptiste en Palestine et Syrie (Gembloux, 1935), p. 358f.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 6} Tr. Danby.

^{page 195 note 7} Before the destruction of the Temple, A.D. 70. Traditions traced to him are pronounced by the Talmud (Yeb. 49a), probably correctly, as ‘small in compass but trustworthy’. Cf. Strack, op. cit. p. 110.

^{page 195 note 8} Tr. Danby.

^{page 195 note 9} Isure Biah, 13f.

^{page 196 note 1} Torrance, Tr., op. cit. p. 150.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 2} Notwithstanding the assertion of Bamberger (op. cit. p. 279), following Graetz, Die judischen Proselyten im Römerreiche unter den Kaisern (Breslau, 1884), that there was no let-up in the movement of Gentiles into Judaism. That there may have been large numbers of Romans attracted to Judaism in the reign of Domitian (Emp. A.D. 81–96) is probably right, but that comes at the end of the twenty-year period (A.D. 70–90) and applies to Rome, where Judaism was but one of many popular exotic religions introduced there from the East, rather than to Palestinian Judaism.

^{page 196 note 3} The Origin and Significance of the New Testament Baptism (Manchester, 1941), p. 9.

^{page 196 note 4} Early Christian Baptism and the Creed (London, 1950), pp. 2–4.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 1} ibid. p. 4.

^{page 197 note 2} Tr. Danby.

^{page 197 note 3} De Bapt. 5. 5.

^{page 197 note 4} Dial. Tryph. cxxii, cxxiii.

^{page 197 note 5} Op. cit. p. 154.