C. טבל and βαπτ(ίζ) ειν in the OT and Judaism.

In the LXX βάπτειν (βαπτίζειν occurs only at 4 Βασ. 5:14) as a rendering of טָבַל, “to dip,” is used for the dipping of the morsel in wine at Ru. 2:14, of feet in the river at Jos. 3:15, of the finger in blood in the Torah of sacrifices at Lv. 4:6, 17 etc., of the dipping of unsanctified vessels in water in the laws of purification at Lv. 11:32 (בא hiph). In the latter case, however, πλύνω (כבס) and λούομαι (רחץ) are more common, as in Lv. 15:11, 13 etc. The sevenfold dipping of Naaman (2 K. 5:14) perhaps suggests sacramental ideas and illustrates the importance of the Jordan. In the later Jewish period טבל (b. Ber., 2b of the bathing of priests; Joma, 3, 2ff. etc.) and βαπτίζειν become tech. terms for washings to cleanse from Levitical impurity, as already in Jdt. 12:7; Gk. Sir. 31(34):30. The טְבִילָה of proselytes belongs to this context.

Yet the origin of this special washing is hard to fix, since in the first instance it does not seem to differ from other washings and is not linked to any special ritual. On inner grounds it is likely that it was already customary in the NT period, since the purity demanded of every Jew could not be relaxed in the case of an impure Gentile. Again, it is hardly conceivable that the Jewish ritual should be adopted at a time when baptism had become an established religious practice in Christianity. After 70 A.D. at least the opposition to Christians was too sharp to allow of the rise of a Christian custom among the Jews. Proselyte baptism must have preceded Christian baptism.

The most important external witnesses are as follows. a. Epict. Diss., II, 9, 19 ff. says that mere appearance does not make a Stoic just as mere talk does not make a Jew: ὅταν δʼ ἀναλάβῃ τὸ πάθος (uncomfortable manner of life? persecution?) τὸ τοῦ βεβαμμένου καὶ ᾑρημένου, τότε καὶ ἔστι τῷ ὄντι καὶ καλεῖται Ἰουδαῖος. οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς παραβαπτισταί, λόγῳ μὲν Ἰουδαῖοι, ἔργῳ δʼ ἄλλο τι. b. Sib., 4, 165 (soon after 79 A.D.), in a warning to the heathen to repent in view of the threatening destruction of the world: ἐν ποταμοῖς λούσασθε ὅλον δέμας ἀενάοισιν. c. Casuistical definitions of proselyte baptism were debated in the schools of Shammai and Hillel. These controversies are attested in the Mishnah (Pes., 8, 8; Ed., 5, 2: Str.-B., I, 102 f.) and date from the 1st cent. A.D. if not from the B.C. period, d. According to b. Jeb., 46a, Str.-B., I, 106, R. Eleazer and R. Joshua (both around 90–130 A.D.) discussed the necessity of circumcision and baptism to make a full proselyte. In this discussion some part is played by the question of a baptism of the fathers prior to the covenant at Sinai. The line of argument in 1 C. 10:1 ff. is best explained if similar traditions were known to Paul. Probably even earlier than the middle of the 1st century A.D., and under the influence of the many women proselytes who could not be circumcised, the existing washing of proselytes came to have the significance of an independent rite of reception.

Genealogically the Jewish washings, including proselyte baptism, are linked with existing rites of purification. In consequence, however, of the strongly transcendental Jewish conception of God, they did not develop along the lines of sacral magic, but exclusively along legalistic lines. Their one goal was ritual purity. If the proselyte could be described as a “new-born child,” this relates only to his theocratic and casuistic position. As a heathen he did not understand the Torah. Hence sufferings which might afflict him after his conversion are not punishments for earlier transgressions. It is from this point on that he must keep the commandments. There is no thought of any natural, let alone ethical, death and regeneration.

The meanings “to drown,” “to sink” or “to perish” seem to be quite absent from the Heb. and Aram. טבל and therefore from βαπτίζειν in Jewish Greek. If the spontaneous construction of such connections cannot be contested a priori, the rise of metaphors based on them has thus far seemed to be most unlikely in the purely Semitic field of speech. The usage of Josephus (→ 530) is not specifically Jewish Greek.