Converting to Judaism in ancient times

[viper37]

Reading some stuff on this, it's still isn't clear to me.
So, during antiquity, pre-christianity, up to the Roman era, could a foreigner convert to Judaism and be accepted as Jewish with equal rights, priviledges&obligations or was it frowned upon?
I'm reading in some places that converts weren't accepted (like some groups/sects today) but in others, they seem to revere converts as people who found the light, just like we Christians do.

Anything on this?

Ah, also, before the destruction of the Temple and the expulsion of Jews, was there different branch of judaism with different customs&interpretation of sacred books?

[Malthus]

Heh, interesting questions; I really don't know the answers. I believe that conversion to Judaism was never really "promoted", mainly because Jews more or less always viewed themselves as a nation as much as a religion.

There certainly were splinter groups of Judaism, pre-diaspora. That's who the "Samaritans" were, for example - hence the importance of the NT parable about the "good Samaritan" (if you are Catholic, think of it as the parable about the "Good Protestant" and you'll have the flavour of it).

Still a few hundred Samaritans around these days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan

[Neil]

Why would anyone convert to Judaism?  It was a tribal religion, and from a not particularily successful tribe.  They didn't exactly seek out converts.

[The Minsky Moment]

IIRC prosyletization and conversion were not at all uncommon during the Classical era.  Under Jewish law, a convert (once converted) is deemed to a full Jew in every respect, and it is big no-no to suggest otherwise (The only limitation is that you can't convert into Kohen or Levite status).  However, it is possible there were times and places where this was not strongly enforced and improper distinctions were made concerning converts.  I do believe that around the time of Jesus some converts were criticized for backsliding, or for not adhering properly to ritual practice, and these individuals would later be targeted for recruitment by the early Christians.

Prior to the destruction of the temple, there were various "factions" of Jews - such as saduccees, pharisees, essenes, and zealots (and of course the Christians), but not different branches.  After the destruction, there was a split between Talmudic and non-Talmudic Jews (Karaites) for a long time - but most of the latter eventually disappeared (except for the Ethiopian Falashas who were rediscovered this century).

[Valmy]

Heh, interesting questions; I really don't know the answers. I believe that conversion to Judaism was never really "promoted", mainly because Jews more or less always viewed themselves as a nation as much as a religion.

According to Christian sources the Jews were pretty active in seeking converts once Christianity really took off.  It is one of the reasons the Roman Empire starting passing laws forbiding people from converting and the church started up the persecutions in Spain.

Also there are lots of letters where Bishops are worried that the locals do not really understand the differences between Judaism and Christianity and are easily fooled and worse most of the Rabbis are better speakers and are poaching too many Germans.

And then Jews worked to convert the Russians and Turkish groups to Judaism for an important reason: the scriptures said that if there was Jewish King the Messiah could not have come...so they figured if they could get a king to convert it would prove the Church wrong.  They did get a few Kings but it didn't really impress anybody.

I think the historical evidence shows an evangelical period of Jewish history between 100 and 800 or so.  How else do we explain the sudden presence of so many Jews all around Europe anyway?

[Malthus]

IIRC prosyletization and conversion were not at all uncommon during the Classical era.  Under Jewish law, a convert (once converted) is deemed to a full Jew in every respect, and it is big no-no to suggest otherwise (The only limitation is that you can't convert into Kohen or Levite status).  However, it is possible there were times and places where this was not strongly enforced and improper distinctions were made concerning converts.  I do believe that around the time of Jesus some converts were criticized for backsliding, or for not adhering properly to ritual practice, and these individuals would later be targeted for recruitment by the early Christians.

Prior to the destruction of the temple, there were various "factions" of Jews - such as saduccees, pharisees, essenes, and zealots (and of course the Christians), but not different branches.  After the destruction, there was a split between Talmudic and non-Talmudic Jews (Karaites) for a long time - but most of the latter eventually disappeared (except for the Ethiopian Falashas who were rediscovered this century).

Samaritans. 

[The Minsky Moment]

That's who the "Samaritans" were, for example - hence the importance of the NT parable about the "good Samaritan" (if you are Catholic, think of it as the parable about the "Good Protestant" and you'll have the flavour of it).

The exact nature of the Samaritans are obscure, but they appear to have been the inheritors of the religious tradition associated with the former northern Kingdom of Israel, a tradition that significantly predated that of the "Jews" (Jerusalem-centered) and hence had some claim to priority.  Not surprisingly, they met with significant hostility from many Jewish leaders (if you have read the OT, you will know it contains a lot of diatribes about religious practices in the northern kingdom).

[The Minsky Moment]

Samaritans. 

Yeah I guess the taxonomical question is whether they are a branch of Judaism proper or whether Jews and Samaritans are separate branches of the "Israelite" tree.

[Josquius]

And then Jews worked to convert the Russians and Turkish groups to Judaism for an important reason: the scriptures said that if there was Jewish King the Messiah could not have come...so they figured if they could get a king to convert it would prove the Church wrong.  They did get a few Kings but it didn't really impress anybody.

What was with this?
The whole era of Jewish-Arabs/Jewish tribal types (I can't remember who....some tribe around the northern Caucasus right?) is very strange. And why did they stop?

[Valmy]

What was with this?
The whole era of Jewish-Arabs/Jewish tribal types (I can't remember who....some tribe around the northern Caucasus right?) is very strange. And why did they stop?

I am not exactly sure why they stopped.  There are not alot of primary sources about this from the Jews themselves.

However the attempts by Jews to convert others pretty much ends with the rise of Islam in the East and the consolidation of the Church in the West.  I think there was a spiritual power vacuum of sorts and the Jews filled it to some extent.  Once Islam and Christianity were secure in victory the Jews bunkered down into Dhimmitude.

[Caliga]

(I can't remember who....some tribe around the northern Caucasus right?)

The Khazars.

[Valmy]

The Khazars.

They were definitely the most powerful group to convert to Judaism out in that part of the world but not the only ones.

[Eddie Teach]

Why would anyone convert to Judaism?  It was a tribal religion, and from a not particularily successful tribe.  They didn't exactly seek out converts.

They had a good run about 3000 years ago.

[Malthus]

That's who the "Samaritans" were, for example - hence the importance of the NT parable about the "good Samaritan" (if you are Catholic, think of it as the parable about the "Good Protestant" and you'll have the flavour of it).

The exact nature of the Samaritans are obscure, but they appear to have been the inheritors of the religious tradition associated with the former northern Kingdom of Israel, a tradition that significantly predated that of the "Jews" (Jerusalem-centered) and hence had some claim to priority.  Not surprisingly, they met with significant hostility from many Jewish leaders (if you have read the OT, you will know it contains a lot of diatribes about religious practices in the northern kingdom).

Certainly if one defines "Jews" as those who are part of the centralized  Jerusalem-centred cult, there are no Jews who are not part of the centralized cult.

If one is inquiring as to whether there existed any alternative or splinter groups of "Jews", I think one cannot avoid at least mentioning the Samaritans in this context, as the distinction between "Jews" and "Israelites" on the part of a non-specialist is likely to be obscure. 

[viper37]

if you are Catholic, think of it as the parable about the "Good Protestant" and you'll have the flavour of it).

Impossible, there's no such thing. 

Didn't know the Samaritans were Jews at the time.  Was always taught they were "neighbours", like Americans for us